a feoffment was made to the uſe of a man, and ſuch wife as he ſhould afterwards marry, for term of their lives, and he afterwards married; in this caſe it ſeems to have been held that the huſband and wife had a joint eſtate, though veſted at different times[1]: becauſe the uſe of the wife's eſtate was in abeyance and dormant till the intermarriage; and, being then awakened, had relation back, and took effect from the original time of creation. Laſtly, in joint-tenancy, there muſt be an unity of poſſeſſion. Joint-tenants are ſaid to be ſeiſed per my et per tout, by the half or moiety, and by all; that is, they each of them have the entire poſſeſſion, as well of every parcel as of the whole[2]. They have not, one of them a ſeiſin of one half or moiety, and the other of the other moiety; neither can one be excluſively ſeiſed of one acre, and his companion of another; but each has an undivided moiety of the whole, and not the whole of an undivided moiety[3].
Upon theſe principles, of a thorough and intimate union of intereſt and poſſeſſion, depend many other conſequences and incidents to the joint-tenant's eſtate. If two joint-tenants let a verbal leaſe of their land, reſerving rent to be paid to one of them, it ſhall enure to both, in reſpect of the joint reverſion[4]. If their leſſee ſurrenders his leaſe to one of them, it ſhall alſo enure to both, becauſe of the privity, or relation of their eſtate[5]. On the ſame reaſon, livery of ſeiſin made to one joint-tenant, ſhall enure to both of them[6]: and the entry, or re-entry, of one joint-tenant is as effectual in law as if it were the act of both[7]. In all actions alſo relating to their joint eſtate, one joint-tenant cannot ſue or be ſued without joining the other[8]. But if two or more joint-tenants be ſeiſed of an advowſon, and they preſent different clerks, the biſhop may refuſe to admit either; becauſe neither joint-tenant hath a ſeveral right of patronage, but each is ſeiſed of the
