the actual possession of the demised premises, the service is sufficient though effected while the defendant was not living within the jurisdiction of the court in which the action is brought. (Doe v. Woodroffe, 7 Dowl. P. C. 494.) This statement, however, should probably be qualified with the condition that the declaration and notice in ejectment must in all cases be served within the nation or the limits of the state, and that the service cannot be made upon the party while out of the state, except the same is made under some statutory provision for a substituted service. Indeed, it has been held in the state of New York, that where the action is brought in a court of local and limited jurisdiction, the declaration must be served on the defendant while within the local jurisdiction of such court. The court saying: "A declaration in a suit commenced by declaration is analogous to process, and process in a suit commenced in the common pleas of one county cannot be served in another. It would not be the regular and orderly conduct of a suit to file a bill against an officer of a court in one county, and serve him with a copy of such bill in another, and upon the same principle the service of the copy of the declaration in this case was irregular." (Ex parte Green v. Oneida Common Pleas, 10 Wend. R. 592, 593. And vide Dunn v. Dunn, 4 Paige's R. 425.) And yet, a defendant upon whom a declaration is served beyond the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is commenced, may waive the irregularity; for example, by appearing in the action, or by obtaining an order against the plaintiff to file security for costs. (Ex parte Squires v. Broome Common Pleas, 10 Wend. R. 600.)

Where the original tenant has under-let the demised premises, after the term has expired, an ejectment may be maintained against him for so much of the premises as his under-tenants have not given up; and although he is not in the actual possession, in such case, the declaration and notice can be served on him, and he must answer to the suit. (Roe v. Wriggs, 5 Bos. & Pull. R. 330.) And if the service of the declaration and notice is made on the tenant in possession, and he neglects to notify his landlord, and judgment is taken against him by default, the same will be held regular, notwithstanding the tenant's neglect to give his landlord the notice. (Breeding v. Taylor, 6 B. Monroe's R. 62.)

It has been held that service of the declaration and notice in ejectment on the servant of the tenant in possession of the demised

premises, with the acknowledgment of the attorney of the tenant that such declaration and notice had been served, is sufficient for judgment nisi against the casual ejector. (Doe v. Snee, 2 Dowl. & Ryl. R. 5. Vide Marvin v. Dennison, 20 Vt. R. 662.) Ordinarily, where the action of ejectment is brought by a landlord against his tenant, and the tenant has under-let the premises, the service of the declaration and notice must be made on the undertenant, or under-tenants, if more than one, and a service on the original tenant will not be sufficient. For example, in ejectment for premises which had been demised on lease to one person who had under-let to others, it was held to be necessary to serve all the under-tenants with a copy of the declaration and notice. And where the tenant of a house locked it up and quitted it, and the landlord, three months afterward, affixed a copy of a declaration in ejectment with the usual notice to the door, the court held that the service was not sufficient, but that the landlord should have treated it as a vacant possession. (Doe v. Cock, 4 Barn. & Cres. R. 259.) Where a defendant, on being served with a declaration in ejectment assented to the character of tenant in possession, and afterward appeared and pleaded, it was held to be quite sufficient evidence for a jury to find that he was the tenant in possession, although it also appeared that he was in the situation only of a servant, and managed the leasings for the real owner on the premises. Abbott, C. J., observed: "As to the point suggested, that a servant is not liable to an ejectment, it is going too far to say, that under no circumstances that can be. There may be cases in which the court would hold that ejectment would lie against a servant;" and Bailey, J., said: "Where a servant is served with a notice in ejectment as tenant in possession, it is competent for him to explain his situation, and so to set the other party right; or, as he seems to have done in this case, to mislead him. If he adopts the latter course, it is very possible that a jury may think that he ought to be considered as the tenant in possession." (Doe v. Stanton, 1 Barn. & Ald. R. 371. And vide Doe v. Stradling, 2 Starkie's R. 187.)

Where several persons are jointly in possession of the premises in question, it has been said that the service of the declaration and notice ought, in strictness, to be upon each party separately. (Buller's N. P. 98.) But the general rule is, that service upon one of two joint-tenants in possession is sufficient; and it has been held in one of the circuit courts of the United States, that if all the

defendants live in the same house upon the premises in question, it is sufficient to deliver one copy of the declaration and notice. (Campbell v. Harper, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 356. Vide Roe v. Doe, 10 Moore's R. 493. Doe v. Roe, 2 Dowl. P. C. 418. Doe v. Roe, 6 ib. 291.) But where the parties in possession are not joint-tenants, then the general rule requires that the declaration and notice in ejectment should be served on the tenants severally; and in such a case, the common rule will be granted against the parties actually served, and a rule nisi against the other parties. (Right v. Wrong, 2 Chitty's R. 175. Doe v. Roe, Ib. 174. Anonymous, Ib. 176. Doe v. Roe, 1 ib. 141. Doe v. Roe, 3 B. Moore's R. 578. Doe v. Roe, 1 Bos. & Pull. R. 369. Doe v. Roe, 4 Dowl. P. C. 586, 591.) A plaintiff in an action of ejectment brought against eleven persons in possession of distinct portions of the premises claimed, holding by separate titles, though all derived from the same source, but without any connection or community of interest between them, will be compelled, on the application of the defendants, to enter into a separate consent rule with each defendant. (Jackson v. Scoville, 5 Wend. R. 96.) Several defendants, however, may be joined in one suit in ejectment, where the plaintiff's title in relation to all is the same, although their possessions may be several and not joint; but in such case a copy of the declaration and notice must be served on each defendant. (Jackson v. Andrews, 7 Wend. R. 152. Jackson v. Wood, 5 Johns. R. 278. Camden v. Haskill, 3 Rand. R. 462. Stewart's Heirs v. Coalter, 4 ib. 74. White v. Pickering, 12 Serg. & Rawle's R. 435.) This rule has been applied where several persons were occupying different rooms in the same house belonging to the plaintiff. (Marshall v. Wood, 5 Vt. R. 250.)

Service of the declaration and notice in ejectment on, one of several partners has been held sufficient against all of the copartners; and so has service of the same papers on one of the two tenants who said the other was only his servant. (Doe v. Roe, 9 Dowl. P. C. 1039. Doe v. Roe, W., W. & D. R. 49. Doe v. Hall, Ib. 392. Doe v. Roe, Ib. 75.) But it has been held that service upon A. B., where the notice was addressed to C. D., although both were tenants, was insufficient. (Doe v. Roe, 5 Dowl. P. C. 255.) And in one case of service upon one of two joint-tenants, who were also partners in trade, a rule nisi only was granted.

2 Chitty's R. 17.)

(Doe v. Roe,

Provision is usually made by statute for the service of process in actions against incorporated companies, and the declaration and notice in ejectment may be served when the defendant is a corporation in the same manner as process in any other action against the same defendant. Generally, service of the declaration and notice in cases against a corporation is made upon the secretary, managing agent, or other principal officer of the company; and in one case the service upon the book-keeper of a company, who occupied part of the premises sought to be recovered, was held to be a good service. (Doe v. Roe, 1 Dowl. P. C. 23. And vide, also, Doe v. Roe. 5 Ib. 147. Doe v. Roe, 8 ib. 134. Doe v. Roe, ib. 858. Doe v. Roe, 6 Scott's R. 610.) So, also, service of the declaration and notice in ejectment upon the clerk of a canal company, at the office of the company, where the action was to recover a part of the land of the canal claimed by the company, was held to be sufficient. (Doe v. Roe, 10 Mees. & Wels. R. 21.) But where the action was brought to recover land illegally taken into a road under a private act of parliament, and the service of the declaration and notice was made upon one of the commissioners in whom the road was vested, and their clerk, the rule was refused altogether. (Doe v. Roe, 8 Dowl. P. C. 505.)

Where property in possession of parish officers is rented by them for the purpose of accommodating the parish poor, service upon the church wardens and overseers is held to be sufficient, although they do not occupy the house otherwise than by placing the poor in it; but service upon one of them only will not answer. (Tupper v. Doe, Barnes' R. 181. Doe v. Roe, 5 Dowl. P. C. 405.)

In ejectments for free schools, service of the declaration and notice upon the master, and sticking the same on the door, and service on a person resident in the school-house, have been held good service. (Doe v. Roe, 8 Dowl. P. C. 292. Doe v. Roe Ib. 509.)

When the tenant has become bankrupt, service on the official assignee only, and on a person "representing himself” as messenger in possession has been held sufficient service to warrant the ordinary rule. (Doe v. Roe, 1 Dowl. P. C. 493. Doe v. Roe, 6 ib. 456. But vide Doe v. Roe, 8 ib. 492.)

The rule nisi for judgment has been granted against the casual ejector, where the service was made on two of three assignees of

the tenant, who was a bankrupt and could not be found. (Doe v Roe, W., W. & D. R. 219.)

So where the tenant is bankrupt, service of the declaration and notice in ejectment upon the bankrupt himself, the official assignee and the messenger in possession under the fiat, is sufficient to justify the motion for judgment against the casual ejector, without service also being effected on the creditor's assignee. (Doe v. Roe, 1 Dowl. N. S. 493.) And if the tenant is bankrupt, service of the declaration and notice in ejectment on one of the assignees, who is stated to be tenant in possession, has been held to be good service. (Doe v. Roe, 6 Jur. 238.) And in a similar case, service of the papers on the assignee and solicitor to the commissioner was held sufficient for judgment against the casual ejector, and service on the official assignee and the assignee of the. bankrupt, was also held sufficient. (Doe v. Roe, Ib. 438. Doe v. Roe, Ib. 781, B. C.)

If the tenant in possession be a lunatic, the service of the papers should be upon him, although he may be confined in a lunatic asylum; unless he has been judicially declared a lunatic, in which case the service should be on the committee. (Doe v Roe, 6 Dowl. P. C. 270. Doe v. Roe, 9 ib. 484. Anonymous, Lofft's R. 401.)

It seems that judgment may be entered up, where the service is made on a person who has the care and custody of the tenant in possession (a lunatic), and the management of his affairs, though not appointed by a regular committee; and the rule nisi in such a case should be generally to show cause, without being directed to any party in particular. (Doe v. Roe, 2 Chitty's R. 183.) And service of a declaration and notice in ejectment upon a lunatic in an asylum was held sufficient. (Doe v. Roe, 3 Man. & Gr. R. 87.)

Where the service of the declaration and notice in ejectment cannot be made upon the tenant personally, a different service will be accepted; although, in all these cases where the service is not in the regular or ordinary manner, a judgment by default for want of an appearance should not be entered, until the court, on a rule to show cause, has sanctioned the mode of service. (Den v. Fenn, 5 Halst. R. 247.)

A rule to appear and plead in ejectment was ordered by the supreme court of the state of New York, under the old practice, where the service of the declaration and notice was on the wife