Majority
p. 356Jackson, ex dem. Palmer and others, against Travis. This was opposed by an affidavit on the part of the defendant* that the plaintiff’s attorney had acknowledged that the claim of the lessors (who were sought to be added) was merely under a deed of trust, for the benefit of the present lessors, and that he believed that, as to all of them except one, they had not assented to the use of their names as lessors; that from conversations with the plaintiff’s attorney, he en
Headnote
Several demises added in ejectment on payment of costs, it appearing that the lessors sought to be added had a subsisting legal title.L. H. Palmer, for the plaintiff,
moved to amend the dec», laration, by adding demises from several lessors. The attorney for the plaintiff made an affidavit, on which the motion was founded, “ that he is informed, and believes, that the title to one third of the premises in question had been vested in the lessors sought to be added, for the recovery of which premises it became necessary to add demises from them.”
p. 357iertained no doubt that the beneficial interest was now vested in the present lessors ; and that granting the motion would impose very great additional difficulty in making out the defence.
H. A. Othoul, contra.
The motion must be granted. We will always allow an amendment, by adding new demises, where it appears that the lessors sought to be added have a subsisting legal title to the premises in question, on payment of costs.
Rule accordingly.