
    Lewis v. Martin.
    In the Court below -
    Henry Martin and Mary his wife, Plaintiffs; John Eewis, Defendant.
    
    may join i!l an actffnrf account, for rents and prof-llnds^arisiiig* ‘luring the coverture. And such action raay 1,e brought in the county where ⅛*⅛ t,ie lsnd 1,e* in anoilns* county,
    
      P "⅛ 1 A HIS was an action of account, brought, in the County of Windham, upon the statute relative to auditors and ac- ' _ lions of account, stating, that Mara Martin, one ol" the defendants, and Henry Martin, in right of his said wife, were seized and possesed of two thirds of an undivided tract of land in the Town of Union, in the County of To l-landa and the defendant was seized of the other undivided third part of said land, as tenant in common with the plaintiffs, and the defendant had cut and earned away trees from said land, and refused to account with the plaintiffs for two thirds of the profits, or any part thereof, &c. The plaintiffs were described as of Woodstock, in Windham County, and the defendant as of Ellington, ⅛ Tolland County.
    
    To this action there was a plea in abatement;
    1. That the action was brought for facta alleged to have been done in the Countv of Tolland, concerning which the title of land may be, and is, in question, whereof the Court of Common Pleas in Tolland County have original and exclusive jurisdiction.
    1804.
    2. That the action ought to have been brought in the name of Henry Martin only, for rents and profits of the wife’s land, during the coverture.
    
    This plea in abatement was adjudged to be insufficient; and after judgment upon the merits against Lewis, he brought a writ of error, and assi gned for cause of error, that said plea in abatement ought to have been adjudged sufficient.
    Peters, for the plaintiff in error.
    1. The action should have been brought in the County of Tolland, as the title ofland may be, and is, in question. The statute is “ that all suits brought for the trial of the “ title of land, or wherfein the title ofland is concerned, “ shall be tried in the same county where the land lies, or w facts are done, concerning which the title of land may “ be in question.” 
    
    In actions of ejectment, the title is not necessarily involved ; but the words of the statute are conclusive, as to cases where the title of land may be in question.
    2. The rent of the wife’s land during coverture is vested in the husband, and upon his death, goes to his representatives.  The account must, therefore, be rendered to him, and not to the wife. As the right of action would not survive to the wile, she may not join in the suit. 
    
    
      Backus, (of Pomfret) for the defendant in error.
    The stature applies only to those cases, where the title of land is definitely in question, — where it is to be settled. In actions of assumpsit for rent, it may be in ques* tion. Hi te, there is no pira of title ; nothing appears upon the record, to show that the title is in question ; nothing but a statement of the party, that it may be, and is, in question.
    2. To show, that the wife may be joined in the suit he cited, Aleberry v. Walby, 
      
      Bidgood v. Way, 
      
       Esp. Dig. 12?, 
      Brashford v. Buckingham, 
       Prat v. Taylor, 
      
       and Trigmieil v. Reeve, 
      
    
    
      
      
         ütai. 26.
    
    
      
      
         2 Pant 369, Chauncey t, Clarke, Strong. 4 Term Pep. 616, Ankersielv
      
    
    
      
       Í Sails 11¾, Buckley V, Collier.
      
    
    
      
      
         1⅞⅛⅛⅜ ⅛
    
    
      
       2⅞8&:'".⅜⅝⅛ 123⅜ :
    
    
      
      
        Stib?£cnteif94fs
      
    
    
      
      
         Cro. Jac. 77.
      
    
    
      
      
        f) Cro. Eliz. 61.
      
    
    
      
       Cro. Car. 438.
    
   By the Court,

The judgment was affirmed.  