Majority
p. 184*SEPTEMBER TERM, 1800. Commonwealth v. Fitch.[1]
Syllabus
Forcible entry.The inquisition in a case of forcible entry and detainer, stated, that A. “ was possessed in his demesne as of fee, &c., and continued so seised and possessed," until “he was thereof disseised:” IWd, that it was not error.
Certiorari, to remove the judgment and proceedings in a case of forcible entry and detainer, from Luzerne county. The inquisition stated, “ that Nathan Beach was possessed in his demesne as of fee, &c., and continued so seised and possessed, until the defendant did enter, and him the said Nathan Beach thereof disseised,” &c.
It was objected, that the prosecutor is stated to have been only possessed of the premises, whereas, the evidence proved him to have been seised. But—
— There is some informality in the expressions; but
p. 185
surely, stating that the prosecutor was disseised, necessarily implies a previous seisin.[1]
Judgment affirmed.
(a) (a) This was not the principle upon which the court decided the case: see 8 Yeates 50 .