Two different his* aparate a? tion, in the same coult an<5 SiUne term, recover judg’ts in eject, against the same tenant, for the same laud. One oftliese plt’fshas a ha, fa. upon his judg’t executed, but instantly grants álease of the land to the deft. A ha. fa. also issues upon the other judg’i, and the plt’f in that has it executed by removing the deft (now tenant oftheother plt’f,) regardless of his new tenancy, and receives the possession. (‘Statement’, ante.)— Held that, if he whose ha. fa. was first executed had himself retained the possession, or had leased to a stranger to the other judgment, ho, or his tenant, could not have been turned out by that judgment—to which neither was a party. But when the other plaintiff comes with his ha. fa. and finds the de’ft in possession of the land, he is not hound to enquire what title he holds under, but may have him amoved, according to the command of the ha. fa. and take and hold the possession_• which tlie other plaintiff cannot regain withou trying titles with him; and the removed tenant, having re-entered in the absence and against the will of him whose ha. fa. was Iasi executed, a writ of forcible entry lies against him.
Second. The counsel for the Appellant have argued that, as he had been lawfully evicted by Forman, and had afterwards become his tenant in good faith, his possession was that of his landlord when Ambler’s writ of habere facias was executed; and that, therefore, the eviction, under that execution, was tortious and did not avail so as to vest the constructive possession in fact in Ambler, after his agent had departed from the land. This argument presetits anew and interesting question, which we must decide without the aid of any direct authority;, But, testing the position now assurhed by reason and analogy, we are inclined to the opinion that it is not maintainable. Had Forman himself, or a tenant for him, who was a stranger to Amblers suit, been in the possession of the land under his judgment rendered in A suit which was pending when Ambler’s action was instituted, the habere facias on the judgment in the latter suit, could not have authorized an eviction. And we, also admit, that the appellant, as Forman’s tenant, should be deemed to have been holding for Forman, and that his possession was, in Contemplation of law, for many purposes, that of Jus landlord. But he alone is the party here—-and, though he may have been a tenant, his possession was, in fact, his own and beneficial to him*170self; and he cannot, we think, defeat or evade Ambler’s judgment against himself, by interposing the unlitigated claims of a stranger to that judgment, however he may represent him.