case pullen against palmer Trinity term will mary roll if a rend charge be  grant to a b and c and c die and a distrain for rend arrear and aver the take  sole in his own right the action on demurrer shall abate for although a  jointtenant may distrain alone he can avow for the whole as in his own right  but ought to make conusance for the rest send quaere if in such case the court  will not grant a repleader S c post S c salk S c Carth Carthew this be on  replevin in which the defendant avow in his own right and it appear that b  assign a rend to thirteen four of who be dead and the defendant modern be one  of the nine survivor and avow the take the distress in his own right because  the rend be arrear which he can do but it ought to be in his own right and as  bailiff to the rest and they ought not to have sever Northey this be but form  if we have avow for a nine part it have be ill in substance because there be  no such thing as a nine part but on this special matter show in the avowry it  be but form and one jointtenant by law may take the whole profit of all the  rest and his discharge of it be good see bowl v poor cro James   a payment of  rend to one jointtenant be good a rentcharge be grant to a feme sole which be  arrear and she marry and the avowry suppose twenty pound to be in arrear not  pay to baron and feme and it be hold good Carthew one jointtenant can distrain  for all the rend alone for they must all join in avowry and so must tenant in  common even for damagefeasant Rokeby justice it seem to be but form for one  jointtenant may take all the profit holt chief justice if all ought to join  then it be not form but substance for it show that the rend be not take in the  same right it be arrear but the question be whether they needs must join all  the entry be that they do join not as bailiff to the rest but as jointtenants  and he avow the take of the rend as in land liable to the distress of he and  the rest if he have say to his distress only it have be bad because the rend  be not due to he only but to he and the rest but he need not avow as bailiff  to they for he needs no authority from the rest to distrain but he may do it  by law and so the defendant have avow here as in land liable to the distress  of himself and the rest one jointtenant may distrain for the whole in point of  interest and not have any authority from the rest as bailiff for then he be to  render a account Carthew then it be not say through the whole record that they  be seize in fee but it be only general that they be seize holt chief justice  they shall have say so for though by intendment seize may be take to be in fee  yet they ought to show it but however this here be well enough for you say the  rend modern be grant to they and their heir and that they be seize of it which  must be understand in fee Carthew then they say the locus in quo be parcel of  the tenement hereafter mention which he show to be in several parish and do  not show in which parish the locus be holt chief justice that be not so well  as it ought to be at another day Carthew as to the case of wise v bella cro  Elizabeth b which be in replevin the defendant avow because his ancestor be  seize in fee and let the land in how c for year render rend and for rend due  to he and his wife he avow the take and on verdict for modern er p the avowant  a exception be take in arrest of judgement because the baron sole avow and do  not join the wife with he whereas it appear that the rend be due to he and his  wife and he ought not to avow in his own name only but because he show the  truth of the matter as it be and do aver the life of the wife and so the  distress well take by he the avowry be adjudge good enough that be because the  rend belong to he but if it have not be in the case of jointtenants it have  not be good holt chief justice suppose one jointtenant shall bring debt for  rend and it appear that the other be alive it will be bad he may distrain  alone but then he must avow in his own right and as bailiff to the other and  then the return must be adjudge to he in his own right and as bailiff to the  other in which case he be Accountable to the other but if we give judgement  for he in this avowry we must adjudge the return of the whole to he in his own  right and though payment to one jointtenant be so to the other yet we must not  give judgement for he alone to have it all in his own right I think the avowry  ought to abate but this be upon a demurrer the question be whether we shall  give judgement that the whole avowry shall abate and to begin de to make new  or only that it shall abate and there be a repleader per curian the avowry be  nought