¶1This action was commenced by Henry Schafer, in his lifetime, against Sargent W. Evans, the appellant, alleging that the said Henry Schafer, plaintiff, was the owner in fee simple and entitled to the possession of certain real estate described in the complaint, and that the defendant held the possession of the same without right, and for six years last past had unlawfully kept the plaintiff out of possession thereof, to plaintiff’s damage $600, which sum is still due and unpaid. Prayer for judgment for $600, and all other proper relief.
¶2During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff, Henry Schafer, died, and Elizabeth Schafer, David Schafer, George Schafer, and David Schafer, as executor of the last will and testament of said Henry Schafer, deceased, were substituted as parties plaintiffs.
¶3The appellant, the defendant below, demurred to the complaint for cause that “ there is a defect in parties plaintiffs ; that the executor of the will, and not the heirs of Hemy Schafer, is the proper plaintiff.”
¶4It will be observed that the executor of the will of Henry Schafer is one of the parties substituted as plaintiff.
¶5It is urged that a complaint by several co-plaintiffs, to be sufficient, must show a good cause of action as to all the plaintiffs. That is true, when tested by a proper demurrer. A complaint in favor of several plaintiffs, to stand the test of a demurrer for want of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, must state a cause of action in favor of all the plaintiffs. Brumfield v. Drook, 101 Ind. 190; Brown v. Critchell, 110 Ind. 31. But the demurrer in this case is for a defect of parties, in that the executor is not a party, when he is in fact a party. The demurrer was properly overruled.
¶6Objection is made that the judgment is rendered for the possession of the real estate, and that there is no specific prayer for the possession.
¶7The complaint contained proper averments, which, if *51proven, entitled the plaintiffs to possession, and it also contained a general prayer for relief.
¶8There was an appearance, trial and finding in favor of the plaintiffs “ that they are the owners, and entitled to the possession of the real estate described in the complaint, and that the defendant is in the unlawful possession of the same.”
¶9There was no error in rendering judgment for the possession of the real estate. Shattuck v. Cox, 97 Ind. 242; Eaton v. Burns, 31 Ind. 390; Lowry v. Dutton, 28 Ind. 473; Shotts v. Boyd, 77 Ind. 223.
¶10There is no error in the record for which the judgment should be reversed.
¶11Judgment affirmed, with costs.