The ruling of the court was correct. If the plaintiff was not in possession “ except through his tenants,” who “ were then in actual possession,” and the acts of the defendant were an injury to the reversion, the declaration should have so alleged the facts. Woodman v. Francis, 14 Allen, 198. Gooding v. Shea, 103 Mass. 360. Dearborn v. Wellman, 130 Mass. 238.

Exceptions overruled.