
    * Asa Emerson and three others, Plaintiffs in Review, versus David Pattee & Ux.
    A judgment in review.
    The plaintiffs in review were original defendants ih this action, which was trespass quare clausum fregit. Upon the first trial, there was a verdict for the original plaintiffs — one dollar, damages, and judgment accordingly, and for costs.
    
      Emerson purchased and prosecuted the writ of review in the name of all the original defendants. And upon the trial of the review, there was again a verdict for the original plaintiffs — damages, seventeen dollars. After the verdict, the three defendants, who did not prosecute the writ, were called and did not appear. Upon which the question was, How ought the judgment to be entered?
   The court, (Sedgwick, Sewall, and Thacher, justices,) after taking time to consider, said, that upon the best consideration they could give the subject, it was their unanimous opinion, that the judgment must be entered against Emerson, for the damages found by the last verdict, and for the costs upon the review ; and that the former judgment be affirmed, to stand as a joint-judgment against all the original defendants'.

The entry was ordered to be made — “ And now all and singular the premises being seen and by the Court here fully understood, it is considered by the Court, that the said David Pattee, and Mary his wife, recover against the said Asa Emerson * the sum of $ 17 damages, with their costs, incurred by

them in this action of review, taxed at-, and that the former judgment,” &c„

See the act of Feb. 26, 1787, sect. 3. (stat. 1786, c. 66.)  