case cartwright versus Pultney July see Giffard v William lr Eq on a bill for  a partition between two jointtenants the plaintiff must show a title in  himself and not allege general that he be in possession of a moiety vide  Parker v Gerard Amb Lord chancellor where a bill be bring in this court to  have a partition between two jointtenants or tenant in common the plaintiff  must show a title in himself to a moiety and not allege general that he be in  possession of a moiet and this be strict than a partition at law where seize  be sufficient the statute of W c be make for that reason here the reason be  because conveyance be direct and not a partition only which make it  discretionary in this court where a plaintiff have a legal title they will  grant a partition or not and where there be suspicious circumstance in the  plaintiff title the court will leave he to law but this be find on a equitable  title I must determine it or otherwise it will be without remedy the plaintiff  need not in his bill set forth a particular title but a general seize in fee  there be a decree at the roll for the master to look into the case the master  report state the title suspicious circumstance of forgery appear in the  plaintiff deed which though not forge by he yet if forge invalidate the  plaintiff title a order be make to look into the deed upon which the plaintiff  desert that title and set up another and pray leave to bring a supplemental  bill on that new title and there be evidence of a forgery it be insist on the  plaintiff part there ought to be a trial at law but the defendant be not  concern to litigate this title as to any right of his own only so far as to  see that he have not a precarious partition and a bad conveyance and that in a  case where it be atkins discretionary in the court to grant partition or not  and will put the defendant to a great expense the evidence here be all on one  side against the deed but on the contrary the title be desert and therefore it  be not incumbent on the court where deed be so impeach to grant a trial  between party concern there have be case where the court have condemned deed  without a trial for instance John ware be case who be direct to be prosecute  by the attorney general and this by order of the house of lord the title on  the original bill must be lie out of the case and dismiss with cost as to the  title on the supplemental bill the objection to it be that it only show a  equitable title not a legal one where a fine and nonclaim be levy by one who  get possession under a forge deed a court of equity will decree against the  fine clarke v ware Prec Charles Eq Abr Ves post but I must in this decree  direct the plaintiff to procure a conveyance by his trustee and the master to  consider who be such further objection have be make to the title circumstance  of fraud in the conveyance want of consideration c these objection be not such  as concern the defendant in respect to the partition atkins er p for if the  owner be in equity entitle to have a reconveyance on the fraud yet the  defendant not be privy and the person be in possession who have the legal  title and be party to the partition the relief will not extend to that if  equal make but the court will decree subject to the partition if indeed it be  defective in law that will be a objection but as they must come into equity  they must do equity to the defendant the last consideration be what I be to do  I be of opinion that I may decree a partition on the supplemental bill and the  party on both side be to procure the trustee to convey and the master will  consider of that on frame the conveyance and if any doubt shall arise may come  before the court on exception the plaintiff must pay the whole cost of the  first suit on the original bill and I must reverse the decree on the original  cause with cost and on the supplemental bill make a new decree for partition  and reserve the cost Reg lib a fol