
    Jonathan Little versus Paul Gardner and wife.
    A married woman may disseize another without the assent of the husband. When a husband is in possession of land in right of his wife, a writ of entry must be brought against both.
    When a report of referees made under a rule of court has been lost, judgment may be rendered upon a copy of the report.
    This was a writ of entry. The cause was submitted by a rule of this court to referees, who made a report, signed by two of the referees, and put on file with the clerk of the court, on the 8th January, 1830. But the report was afterwards taken from the files and lost. A copy of the report was, however, taken, before it was put upon file, which was proved by the person who made it, to be a true copy. And two of the referees, who sign" ed the report, testified that they made a report as stated in the said copy.
    Two questions were raised in the case ; one, whether this action could be maintained against the wife,? the other, whether judgment could be rendered upon the copy of the report ?
    Sullivan, for the demandant.
    
      Mason and Betton, for the tenants.
   By the court.

It has been objected in this case, that a writ of entry cannot be maintained against a husband and wife, because a wife cannot be a disseizeress. But this is a mistake. A married woman may disseize another without the assent of her husband, and the husband will be liable to an action with his wife fpr such dis-seizin. Perkins, sec. 46. But a married woman can in general disseize only by her own actual entry. Co. Litt. 180, b, note 4 ; Fitz H. N. B. 179. However, where a husband is in possession of land in right of his wife, a writ of entry must be brought against both. Com. Dig. “ Baron & feme,” Y ; Perkins, sec. 46.

When a report of referees is lost, we have no doubt that judgment may be rendered upon a copy of the report duly proved, or upon affidavits of the contents of the report. 3 Taunt. 45, Hill v. Townsend; Caldwell, 163 ; 1 Strange, 526, Robinson v. Davis.  