Opinion of the Court.

ability of Lucy T. Davis, if she was under any, arrested the running of the statute. Cumulative disabilities cannot be used to that effect. Thorp v. Raymond, 16 How. 247; Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. 129; Smith v. Burtis, 9 Johns. 174; Jackson v. Johnson, 5 Cowen, 74; Walden v. Heirs of Gratz, 1 Wheat. 292; Hogan v. Kurtz, 94 U. S. 773; Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 1 How. 37; McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U. S. 619.

The bar of the statute was therefore complete against her. But it was not complete against Millard McCormick. Ten years of the period of adverse possession had not run after the death of his parents or after the conveyance to him and before suit was commenced; and we are brought to the contention that a verdict should have been rendered for him. Passing on and disposing of the contention adversely, Mr. Justice Shepard, speaking for the Court of Appeals, 12 D. C. App. 51, 60, said:

"The rule is old and well established, that if one plaintiff in a joint action of ejectment cannot recover, his coplaintiffs cannot. Morris v. Wheat, 8 App. D. C. 379, 385. Hard as this rule may seem to be, it was followed in that case in obedience to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Marsteller v. McLean, 7 Cranch, 156, 159. In that case Mr. Justice Story said: 'It seems to be a settled rule that all the plaintiffs in a suit must be competent to sue, otherwise the action cannot be supported.' And again: 'When once the statute runs against one of two parties entitled to a joint action, it operates as a bar to such joint action.' See, also, Shipp v. Miller, 2 Wheat. 316, 324; Dickey v. Armstrong, 1 A. K. Marshall, 39, 40.

"There has been no legislation affecting the rule of practice in the District of Columbia, and we do not consider it within our province to make a change therein.

"The apparent hardship to this plaintiff might have been avoided by a separate suit on his own behalf.

"The original rule at common law was, that tenants in common could only sue separately because they were separately seized, and there was no privity of estate between them.

Opinion of the Court.

Mobley v. Brunner, 59 Penn. St. 481; Corbin v. Cannon, 31 Mississippi, 570, 572; May v. Slade, 24 Texas, 205, 507; 4 Kent Com. 368.

"The practice soon became general, however, in the United States to permit them to sue either jointly or severally as they might elect. 7 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 316, and cases cited. This seems to have been the practice in the District of Columbia, and, so far as we are advised, has never been questioned. Tenants in common may join in an action if they prefer to do so, but it is with the risk of the failure of all if one of them fail to make out a title or right to possession." These remarks express the rule correctly.

It was urged at the argument by defendants in error, though not claimed in their brief, that neither Tracenia Latimer nor Elizabeth McCormick were under disability at any time during the period of adverse possession. The argument was that by the married woman's act of April 10, 1869, c. 23, 16 Stat. 45, they were given the same remedies in regard to their property that they would have had if unmarried.

The contention presents an interesting question, and maybe involves the further one whether their husbands ever became tenants by the curtesy. But we need not pass on them. Assuming the disability of Tracenia and Elizabeth and such tenancy, the errors assigned on the instructions given or refused were not well taken.

3. There was introduced in evidence as part of the chain of title of the plaintiff, Lucy T. Davis, a deed from her to John H. Walter and a reconveyance from him to her. From the latter was excepted "so much of all the lands and tenements above mentioned as had been conveyed by the party of the first part (Walter) to other persons prior to the filing of a bill in equity, cause 11,637 of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia."

Walter was called as a witness by plaintiff; testified that such reconveyance was the only one he had made of lot 10— the lot in controversy. Thereupon defendant's counsel crossexamined him at great length against the objection of plain

Opinion of the Court.

tiffs, regarding his business of buying and selling real estate and the extent of it and character. The ruling of the court permitting the cross-examination is assigned as error. We see no error in it. The question of plaintiffs' counsel was a general one, and opened many things to particular inquiry. The extent and manner of that inquiry was necessarily within the discretion of the court, even though it extended to matters not connected with the examination in chief. In Rea v. Missouri, 17 Wall. 532, it was said: "Where the cross-examination is directed to matters not inquired about in the principal examination, its course and extent are very largely subject to the control of the court in the exercise of a sound discretion; and the exercise of that discretion is not reviewable on a writ of error."

It is also objected that Walter was subjected to discriminating remarks by the court. Plaintiff requested the following instruction:

"The jury are instructed that there is no testimony in this case tending to rebut the testimony of the witness John H. Walter that he never conveyed lot 10 in controversy in this case to any person other than the conveyance by the deed to plaintiffs Charles M. N. Latimer, Lucy T. Davis and others, and the jury would not be justified in finding to the contrary.” The court struck out the words in italics and inserted instead, "and the weight to be given his testimony is a proper question for the jury."

The instruction as requested assumed the credibility of the witness; as modified, that question was submitted to the jury, who were the judges of it, and we cannot suppose that the jury misunderstood the court or believed a discrimination was intended.

To the other assignments of error special consideration is not necessary to be given. Judgment affirmed.

Syllabus.

SPURR v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH

CIRCUIT.

No. 448. Argued March 13, 14, 1899. - Decided May 22, 1899.

Spurr was tried in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee on three indictments, consolidated together, each of which charged him with having wilfully violated the provisions of Rev. Stat. § 5208, by wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly certifying certain cheques drawn on said bank by Dobbins and Dazey, well knowing that Dobbins and Dazey did not have on deposit with the bank at the times when the cheques were certified, respectively, an amount of money equal to the respective amounts specified therein. It was not denied that the defendant certified the cheques, and that the account of Dobbins and Dazey was overdrawn when the certifications took place. The questions for determination were defendant's knowledge of the state of Dobbins and Dazey's account when the cheques were certified and his intent in the certifications. After the case had been committed to the jury, and they had had it under consideration for some hours, they returned to the court room, and asked the following question, which was written out: "We want the law as to the certification of cheques, when no money appeared to the credit of the drawer." The court read to the jury the first half of Rev. Stat. § 5208, as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any officer, clerk or agent of any national banking association to certify any cheque drawn upon the association unless the person or company drawing the cheque has on deposit with the association, at the time such cheque is certified, an amount of money equal to the amount specified in such cheque." The court then inquired: "Does this answer your question?" To which the foreman replied: "Yes, sir." The court again read that part of the section, and made certain observations; among others that a false certification was "the certifying by an officer of the bank that a cheque is good when there are no funds to meet it." As the jury were retiring, counsel for defendant said to the court that he thought what the jury wanted was the act of 1882 which the court had read to them, and that the court ought to read and explain that act to the jury. That act provided that an officer, clerk or agent of a national bank wilfully violating the provisions of Rev. Stat. § 5208, etc., "should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and should, on conviction," "be fined," etc. The court, after asking if the counsel referred to the act prescribing a penalty for false certification, and receiving an answer in the affirmative, said that the jury had nothing to do with that. Held, that the Circuit Court clearly erred in declining the request of counsel in respect of the act of 1882.

Statement of the Case.

SPURR was tried in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee on three indictments, each containing several counts, for the violation of section 5208 of the Revised Statutes, which provides:

"It shall be unlawful for any officer, clerk or agent of any national banking association to certify any cheque drawn upon the association unless the person or company drawing the cheque has on deposit with the association, at the time such cheque is certified, an amount of money equal to the amount specified in such cheque. Any cheque so certified by duly authorized officers shall be a good and valid obligation against the association; but the act of any officer, clerk or agent of any association, in violation of this section, shall subject such bank to the liabilities and proceedings on the part of the Comptroller as provided for in section fifty-two hundred and thirty-four."

By section 13 of the act of Congress approved July 12, 1882, c. 290, 22 Stat. 162, it is provided:

"That any officer, clerk or agent of any national banking association who shall wilfully violate the provisions of an act entitled 'An act in reference to certifying cheques by national banks,' approved March third, eighteen hundred and sixtynine, being section fifty-two hundred and eight of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or who shall resort to any device, or receive any fictitious obligation, direct or collateral, in order to evade the provisions thereof, or who shall certify cheques before the amount thereof shall have been regularly entered to the credit of the dealer upon the books of the banking association, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof in any Circuit or District Court of the United States, be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court."

The indictments charged that Spurr, being the president of the Commercial National Bank of Nashville, Tennessee, wilfully violated the provisions of section 5208 of the Revised Statutes by wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly certifying certain cheques drawn on said bank by Dobbins and Dazey, well