entitled Doe v. Roe, omitting entirely the name of the lessor of the plaintiff, is bad. (Doe v. Johnson, 1 Jur. 166.)

The affidavit of the service of the declaration and notice should regularly be made by the person who made the service; although the affidavit may be made by a person who saw the declaration and notice served, and heard the same explained to the tenant in possession. (Goodtitle v. Badtitle, 2 Bos. & Pull. R. 120.) So also the court will grant a rule nisi for judgment against the casual ejector, where the affidavit is jointly made by the person who served the declaration and the housekeeper of the tenant in possession; the former stating a service on the latter with the proper explanation, and the latter stating that she had delivered the declaration and notice to her master. (Doe v. Roe, 2 Dowling P. C. 198.) In an ejectment on a vacant possession, the affidavit that six months' rent is in arrear may be made by a receiver. (Anonymous, 3 Moore & Scott's R. 741.)

The affidavit of service of a declaration and notice in ejectment must be sworn to before a judge of the court in which the action is pending, a commissioner, or other officer authorized to take affidavits to be read in courts of record; and although the rule is different in this country, it has been held in England, that the affidavit of service may be sworn to before the attorney in the cause. (Doe v. Roe, 2 Young & Jervis' R. 284.)

It should appear clearly, from the affidavit, that the person who was the object of the service was the tenant in possession of the premises claimed. (Anonymous, 1 Price's R. 349.) And the affidavit must state that the party served is tenant in possession. (Doe v. Roe, 1 Har. & W. R. 367.) Although in one case it was held to be sufficient, if the affidavit impliedly shows that the defendant was the tenant in possession at the time the declaration was served on his wife. (Anonymous, 1 Chitty's R. 500.) But it is very much safer, if not positively requisite, for the affidavit of service of the declaration and notice in ejectment to state positively and not inferentially the service to have been effected on the tenant in possession; and it has been held, that it is not sufficient to entitle a party to judgment against the casual ejector, to swear to service on the tenant in possession by serving on H. H., who was on the premises. (Doe v. Hitchcock, 2 Dowl. N. S. 1. Same Case, 9 Jur. 916, B. C.) So also it has been held, that, in order to obtain judgment against the casual ejector, it is necessary that

a service should be shown on the "tenant in possession;" a service on the last person in possession is insufficient, although there may be a difficulty in ascertaining who is the tenant in possession. (Doe v. Roe, 5 Dowl. P. C. 720. Same Case, W., W. & D. R. 392.) And an affidavit of service upon the person in possession, or upon the "occupier" of the premises claimed, is insufficient. (Doe v. Roe, 5 Dowl. P. C. 609. Doe v. Roe, Ib. 714.) Neither will it answer to swear to service on a person who appears, from facts stated in the affidavit, to be in point of law the tenant in possession; but it is necessary that the affidavit should show in terms that the service was on the tenant in possession. (Doe v. Roe, 5 Dowl. P. C. 226. Wharton v. Clay, 4 Bibb's R. 167.) And where there are several tenants in possession, the affidavit of service in ejectment should state that each was served; and an affidavit stating that the deponent "personally served J. T., W. E., J. E. and C. T., the four tenants in possession, with true copies of the declaration," is not sufficient; but each should be sworn to have been personally served. (Doe v. Roe, 7 Dowl. P. C. 102. Doe v. Roe, 1 Arn. R. 373. But vide Doe v. Roe, W., W. & D. R. 220.) Where the return of the marshal of the service of a declaration in ejectment stated that such marshal had shown the declaration to one defendent, and delivered a copy of it at the dwelling-house of the other in the presence of his wife, the court held the return insufficient, as a copy should have been left at the dwelling-houses of both defendants, and the notice should have been read or explained by the marshal, and the return should have stated that the defendants were tenants in possession. If, however, all the defendants in ejectment inhabit the same house, and this appears by the marshal's return, it is sufficient to deliver one copy. (Campbell's Lessee v. Harper, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 356.)

Whether the tenant is in possession, is not a question upon the merits, but merely of irregularity, and it seems that affidavits may be heard upon the question on both sides. But it must appear, by affidavit, that the declaration and notice were served upon the tenant in possession, before a default can be taken against the casual ejector. (Jackson v. Stiles, 1 Cow. R. 222.)

If the service of the declaration and notice in ejectment is acknowledged by indorsement on the same, the signature of the tenant in possession must be proved. (Freeman v. Oldham's Lessee, 4 Monroe's R. 420.) But it seems that in Mississippi the

affidavit of the service of the declaration and notice in ejectment is not required. This must be on account of a statutory provision, which may be referred to hereafter. (Williams v. Oppelt, 1 Smedes & Marshall's R. 559.) On the contrary, in the state of New Jersey the practice is quite as strict as it is in England, in this respect. Where, in an action of ejectment against a corporation, the affidavit of the service of the declaration stated that

copy was "served upon A B, said to be one of the directors of the within named company," and the court held the same to be insufficient. (Den v. Fen. v. The President, etc., of the Bridgewater Mining Company, Tenants, 5 Halst. R. 237. Same Case, 7 ib. 321.)

An affidavit that the deponent served A B, the tenant in possession, or his wife, is not sufficiently certain as to either. (Birbeck v. Hughes, Barn. R. 173.) And affidavits that the deponent did serve the wives of A and B, who, or one of them, are tenants in possession, have been held insufficient. (Harding v. Greensmith, Barn. R. 174.)

So an affidavit, which states that the declaration was served on the daughter of the tenant in possession, but does not show that such service was made on the premises in question, is insufficient. (Den v. Fen, 7 Halst. R. 321.)

The affidavit of the service of the declaration and notice in ejectment must state, in addition to the facts herein before referred to, that the notice annexed to the declaration was read and explained at the time of the service, to the tenant in possession, or generally that the tenant was informed of the intent and meaning of the papers served, or satisfactory reasons given why such reading and explanation did not occur. The authorities hereinbefore cited to show the necessity of reading and explaining the notice annexed to the declaration in ejectment to the tenant at the time of service, also show that the fact of such reading and explanation is required to be stated in the affidavit of service, and the citation of these authorities need not be repeated here. (Vide also Den v. Fen, 5 Halst. R. 237.)

By the present rules of the English courts, no judgment in ejectment, for want of appearance or defense, whether limited or otherwise, can be signed, without first filing an affidavit of the service of the writ according to the common law procedure act of 1852, and a copy thereof; and under this provision it has been doubted, whether the affidavit of service of the writ of ejectment should

show, as under the old practice, that the nature and object of the service was explained to the party served. It seems, at all events, an irregularity in that respect is waived by a subsequent attornment. (Edwards v. Griffith, 6 J. Scott's R. 397. Same Case, 80 Eng. C. L. R. 397.)

If several persons be in possession of the disputed premises, and separate declarations in ejectment be served upon them, one affidavit of service upon all, annexed to the copy of one declaration, is sufficient; provided one action of ejectment only be intended; but if the ejectments are made several, so as to have separate judgments, and separate writs of possession, of course, then separate affidavits of the several services upon the different tenants must be annexed to copies of the several declarations respectively. (Adams on Ejectment, 246.)

Where an action of ejectment has been brought against several tenants, on a motion for judgment against the casual ejector, the names of all the tenants should be introduced into the copy of the declaration and notice which are attached to the affidavit of service. If the notice so attached contains no name, and the affidavit states that the name of each was inserted in the copy served on him, even then the affidavit is insufficient. (Doe v. Roe, 8 Dowl. P. C. 500. Same Case, 4 Jur. 990, B. C.)

The affidavit of service of the declaration and notice in ejectment must state the year, as well as the month, and day of the month, in which the service was made; and an affidavit in which the year in which the service was made is omitted, is defective. For example, where the affidavit of the service of the declaration and notice in ejectment was sworn to on the 8th of June, 1840, and stated the service to have been made on the 26th of May, without saying "last," or mentioning any year, the court held that the affidavit must be amended. (Doe v. Roe, 8 Dowl. P. C. 784. 4 Jur. 748, Exch.) But where the affidavit and service of the declaration and notice in ejectment appears to be defective, a party who has been served cannot take advantage of the defect before judgment is quashed. (Gabbot v. Ejector, 1 Alcock & Napier's [Irish] R. 184.) A memorandum, on the back of a declaration in ejectment, stating that the same was served on the tenant in possession four years back, in the handwriting of a person who had since left the country, was held by the court to be insufficient to allow judgment to be entered up against the casual ejector. (Doe v. Roe, 1 Har.

to appear on some day during the term of the court to which the declaration is returned, and if such appearance is not entered according to the terms of the rule, the plaintiff may sign judgment by default against the casual ejector; although the judgment will be vacated if the tenant enters his appearance afterward, and during the same term, if it should continue beyond the period stated in the rule. (Campbell's Lessee v. Harper, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 356. And vide Jackson v. Smith, 1 Johns. R. 106. Gardiner v. Murray's Lessee, 4 Yeates' R. 560.) Where the notice at the foot' of a declaration in ejectment is addressed to all the tenants in possession of distinct parts of the premises, and each tenant is served with a copy addressed to all, there should be only one rule for judgment. At all events in ejectment against several tenants, where the name of each is prefixed to the notice served, only one rule is necessary on a motion for judgment against the casual ejector. (Doe v. Roe, 2 Dowl. N. S. 52. Same Case, 6 Jur. 931, B. C. Doe v. Roe, 7 Term R. 477. Doe v. Roe, 2 Tyr. R. 724. Same Case, 2 C. & J. R. 670.)

But a rule for judgment against the casual ejector, where there are two lessors of the plaintiff, should be entitled in the names of both. (Doe v. Roe, 7 Scott's R. 172.) And where four out of five parish officers were served in ejectment, the rule for judgment against the casual ejector can only be taken as to the premises in the possession of the four. (Doe v. Roe, 2 Har. & W. R. 335.)

A rule was made absolute for judgment against the casual ejector, where a rule nisi was served on the servant of the tenant on the premises, which were locked up, and nobody was there except the servant, who had the keys, the declaration having been served on the servant under nearly the same circumstances. (Doe v. Roe, 2 Chitty's R. 184.) But in ejectment on a forfeiture, an affidavit was made that the defendant was a pauper, that his residence was unknown, and that one Flight was the real defendant, and that he received the rent. Flight denied that he was the landlord and owner, and asserted that he received the rent for the defendant. The court discharged a rule calling on Flight to state the residence of the defendant, or show cause why the lessor of the plaintiff should not be at liberty to sign judgment against the casual ejector. (Doe v. Roe, 1 Jur. 199.)

The plaintiff, in an ejectment on a vacant possession, should proceed more regularly than in a contested possession; and if, in such