
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1803.
    Cretzer’s Lessee vs. Thomas.
    Where the plaintiff brings an action of ejectment for an entire tract of land, and show title to an undivided moiety of a part only, he cannot recover.
    EjectmENT for a tract of land railed The Resur--aey on Hills, Dales, and the Vineyard, lying in "Wash-T> r. * , ' , , , iivgton county. Defence on warrant, ana plots ° were returned. The plaintiff located on the plots, as his claim and pretensions, a deed to Lis lessor from James Chapline, for an undivided moiety of a part of the tract of land for which the ejectment was brought; and at the trial he shewed title to such undivided moiety only, which was objected to on the ground that th© ejectment was brought for the whole tract.
    Mason, for the Plaintiff.
    
      Shaaff, for the Defendant.
   Done. J.

This question has been settled. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for an undivided moiety of that pari of the tract of land named in the declaration, which is included in the deed from Chap-line to Gretxer, and located on the plots returned in .the cause beginning, &c.. 
      
      
         In the opinion given by the court of appeals in the case of Carroll, et al■ lessee, vs. Norwood’s heirs, at June term IS20, it is stated, that although in an action of ejectment the plaintifi' can recover less than he claims, yet it must consist ot the same ■naticre with that claimed. If he claims 100 acres, less than 100 acres m•>y be recovered, If he claims an undivided moiety, an undivided third, or any undivided pan may be recovered; but he cannot recover an undivided part where he claims an entirety, or entirety when he demands an undivided portion,
      
     