
    *SEPTEMBER TERM, 1800.
    Commonwealth v. Fitch. 
    
    
      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—
    
      
       s. c. 3 Yeates 49.
    
   By the Court.

— There is some informality in the expressions; but surely, stating that the prosecutor was disseised, necessarily implies a previous seisin.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
      
         This was not the principle upon which the court decided the case: see 8 Yeates 50.
     