J O I 
fible to alter the pofition. He had fuch an abfolute com¬ 
mand of his mufcles and joints, that he could almoft dif- 
joint his whole body: fo that he once impofed on the 
famous Mullens by his diftortions, in fuch a manner, 
that he refufed to undertake his cure: but, to the amaze¬ 
ment of the phyfician, no fooner had he given over his 
patient, than he law him reftore himfelf to the figure and 
condition of a proper man, with no diftortion about him. 
To JOINT, v. a. To form in articulations.—The fin¬ 
gers are jointed, together for motion, and furnifhed with 
leveral mufcles. Ray. —To form many parts into one: 
Againft the Heed he threw 
His forceful fpear, which, hiding as it flew, 
Pierc’d through the yielding planks of jointed wood. Dryden. 
To join together in confederacy. Not ufed: 
The times 
Made friends of them, jointing their force ’gainft Csefar. 
Shakefpeare. 
To divide a joint; to cut or quarter into joints : 
Me joints the neck; and with a ftroke fo ftrong 
The helm flies off, and bears the head along. Dryden. 
JOINT, adj. Shared among many.—Though it be 
common in refpeft of fome men, it is not fo to all man¬ 
kind ; but is the joint property of this country, or this 
parifh. Locke. 
Entertain no more of it, 
Than a joint burthen laid upon us all. Shakefpeare. 
Combined; afling together in concert.—In a war carried 
on by the joint force of lb many nations, France couid 
fend troops. Addifon. 
On your joint vigour now, 
My hold of this new kingdom all depends. Milton. 
United in the fame poffeflion. 
JOINT-HEIR,/. A coheir. Johinfon. 
JOINT-HEIRESS, f. A coheirefs. Johnfon. 
JOINT LIVES. A bond was made to a woman dum fola, 
to pay her fo much yearly as long as fhe and the obligor 
Ihould live together, &c. Afterwards the woman mar¬ 
ried ; and, aftion of debt being brought on this bond by 
hufband and wife, the defendant pleaded, that he and the 
plaintiff’s wife did not live together ; but it was adjudged, 
that the money fliould be paid during their joint lives, 
fo long as they were living at thefame time, Be. i Lutw. 555. 
JOINT-TEN'ANCY,/ In law, a mode of jointly pof- 
feffing land or chattels under certain regulations.—Eftates 
may be held in feveralty, in joint-tenancy , in coparcenary, 
and in common. Blackjlone. 
JOINT-TEN'ANT, /. One who enjoys any thing 
equally with another.—Man walk’d with be.aft., joint-tenant 
of the (hade. Pope .— In law, one who holds any thing in 
joint-tenancy. —One joint-tenant cannot be entitled to one 
period of duration or quantity of intereft, and the other 
to a different. Blachfonc. 
The effential difference between joint-tenants and te¬ 
nants in common is, that joint-tenants have the lands by 
one joint title, and in one right; and tenants in common 
by feveral titles, or by one title, and by feveral rights : 
this is the reafon, fays lord Coke, that joint-tenants have 
one joint freehold, and tenants in common have feveral 
freeholds, though this property is common to them both, 
viz. that their occupation is undivided, and neither of 
them knoweth his part in feveral. Co. Lit. 189, a. 
The properties of a joint eftate are derived from its 
unity, which is fourfold; the unity of interejl, of title, of 
time, and of pojjejjion ; or in other words, joint-tenants have 
one and the fame intereft, accruing by one and the fame 
conveyance, commencing at one and the fame time, and 
held by one and the fame undivided poffeffion. 
In the creation of a joint-tenancy in fee, particular care 
rnuft be taken not to infert the words, and the furvivor of 
them. For the grant of an eftate to two and the furvivor 
Vol. XI. No. 749. > 
J O I SS7 
of them, and the heirs of the furvivor, does not make 
them joint-tenants in fee, but gives them an eftate of 
freehold during their joint lives, with a contingent re¬ 
mainder in fee to the furvivor. Whether during their 
joint lives the fee continues in the grantor or remains in 
abeyance, and whether they can convey their eftate, and 
what is the proper mode of conveyance to be ufed, are 
points which have been much agitated, and which per¬ 
haps are not yet quite fettled. They were all mentioned 
in the cafe of Vick v. Edwards. 3 P. Wins. 372. 
Joint-tenants are faid to be feifed per my B per tout , by 
the half or moiety, and by all: that is, they each of them 
have the entire pofi'efTion, as well of every parcel as of 
the whole. They have not one of them a feifin of one 
half or moiety, and the other of the other moiety, neither 
can one be exclufively feifed of one acre, and his compa¬ 
nion of another; but each has an undivided moiety of 
the whole, and not the whole of an undivided moiety. 
Litt. § 288. 5 Rep. 10. Brail. 1 . 5. tr. 5.C. 26. And, there¬ 
fore, if an eftate in fee be given to a man and his wife, 
they are neither properly joint-tenants, nor tenants in 
common; for, hulband and wife being confidered as one 
perfon in law, they cannot take the eftate by moieties, 
but both are feifed of the entierty per tout B non per my ; 
the confequence of which is, that neither the hufband 
nor the wife can difpofe of any part without the affent of 
the other, but the whole mutt remain to the furvivor. 
Litt. § 665. 1 Inf. 187. 
In a cafe in the King’s Bench during lord Holt’s time, 
the queftion was, how the furrender of a copyhold to the 
ufe of three Tons and two daughters, equally to be divided , 
and their refpedlive heirs, ought to be con ft rued j and the 
following pafTage in 1 Inf. 190. b. was much relied upon, 
by two of the judges, as an authority to Ihow, that the 
words equally to be divided imply a tenancy in common. “ If 
a verdict find that a man hath duas partes manerii. Be. in 
tres partes divifas, this Ihall not be intended to be in com¬ 
mon ; but if verdict be, in tres partes dividendas, then it 
feemeth that they are tenants in common by the intend¬ 
ment of the verdift.” But lord Holt, who was for a 
joint-tenancy, obferved, that no fuch matter appears in 
the cafe of 21 Edw. IV. there cited by. lord Coke in the 
margin as his authority, and that he was not pofitive 
therein, but only wrote it as his conjedfure. Fi/ker v.Wigg, 
1 P. IVms. 14. Salk. 391. Com. Rep. 88, 92. 12 Mod. 296. 
1 Ld. Raym. 622. In the two latter books, and in P. Wms. 
the cafe is reported very much at large; and, as the ar¬ 
guments on each fide are very elaborate, it is an autho¬ 
rity fit to be reforted to wherever the doubt is, whether 
there fhall be a tenancy in common or joint-tenancy; and 
feems an acknowledged authority in cafes of furrenders 
of copyholds. 1 Wits. 341. See alfo Anglefy v. Ram, Dorn. 
Proc. Sept. t’jT.'j. Barker v. Gyles, 2 P. Wms. 280. Denn v. 
Gafkin, Cozup. 66o. In this laft cafe the word equally was 
deemed fufficient to create a tenancy in common in a 
will; and lord Mansfield declared the opinion of the two 
judges, who differed from Holt, to be the better and 
more liberal one; and judge Alton noticed, that equally to 
be divided had been adjudged a tenancy in common, even 
in a deed. See 1 Inf. 190. b in n ; and further under Te¬ 
nants in Common. 
Upon the principles of a thorough and intimate union 
of intereft and pofTeffion, depend many other confe- 
quences and incidents to the joint-tenant’s eftate, befides 
thofe already cafually noticed. It is held, that one joint- 
tenant cannot have an aftion againft another for trefpafs, 
in refpeft of his land, for each has an equal right to enter 
on any part of it. 3 Leon. 262. But one joint-tenant is 
not capable by himlelf to do any aft, which may tend to 
defeat or injure the eftate of the other; as to let leafes, 
or to grant copyholds. 1 Leon. 234. And, if any wafte be 
done, which tends to the deftruftion of the inheritance, 
one joint-tenant may have an aftion of wafte againft the 
other, by conltruftion of the flat. Weftm. 2. c. 22. a Inf. 
403. So too, though at common law no aftion of account 
3 F lay 
