Wisner v. Wilcocks , 1 Cole. Cas. 56 ( 1798 )

Per Curiam.

There is no case which goes the length of saying that none are to be considered as landlords within the meaning of this rule, but those who actually receive rents. Some dicta look that way, but it is the privity of interest, and not the receiyj'ng of rent, which is the true test. A mortgagee ° ° out of possession may be let in to defend. Strangers only are to be excluded.

Motion granted.