
    Jackson, ex. dem. Colden and others, against Paul.
    To warrant made a lessor in ejectment, he must nave a claim to a subsisting title or interest m the premises.
    enoughTthaUt may be ■ ‘a question on the trial whether the legal title is not ves- ‘ ted in him.'
    The declaration contained. 8 counts, and the.last set forth a demise from IS.persons, none of whom, (as the tenant stated jp pjg affidavit,) he was informed and believed, pretend to . . , . ' 1 claim any.titie to the premises in question. On this affiday¡t 3
    
    
      L. Ford,
    
    moved .to strike .out the 8th demise. He cited Jackson v. Sclover, (10 John. 368,) and Jackson v. Richmond, (4 John. Rep. 483.)
    
      J O. Morse, .contra,
    read the affidavit of the attorney for the.plaintiff, which stated that it might be a question on the trial, whether .the legal title of part of the premises is not vested in the lessqrs named in the 8th demise.
   Curia.

This is not enough, to warrant.us in retaining that demise. ■ Thelessors must.have a plaitn to a subsisting .title or interest in ¡the premises. The affidavit on the part of ,the ¡gi^ntiffdoes npt show,this. Jackson v. Richmond, cited by the counsel for the defendant, is decisive in favor of the application.

Rule granted.  