Rudzinski v. D'Orazio

Knight, P. J.,

— The facts have been stated in our previous opinion filed upon exceptions to the master’s original report and will not be restated here.

Defendants contend that no rent is due by them to plaintiffs because under the Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 237, they were not in exclusive possession of the premises which were the subject of the partition proceeding. This provides:

“In all cases in which any real estate is now or shall be hereafter held by two or more persons as tenants in common, and one or more of said tenants shall have been or shall hereafter be in possession of said real…