One who is in possession under a contract by which he is to have the use of the premises in question gratuitously, cannot be held liable in an action for use and occupation.1 An action of assumpsit for use and occupation will not lie against one who does not sustain the relation of tenant, even though such person may have lived upon such real property in a subordinate relation to the tenant. Thus, where A had made a lease to B, and B's granddaughter, X, lived with B on the premises, not paying rent or board, it was held that A could not recover from X in an action for use and occupation.2 Under a statute providing that the expenses of the family shall be chargeable on the property of the husband or wife, or either of them, and permitting either joint or several actions to be brought against them, it has been held that where a lease is made to the husband a joint action for use and occupation may be brought against husband and wife.3