Case Name: Commonwealth v. Fitch
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1800-09
Citations: 4 Dall. 184
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth v. Fitch.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
*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.

Opinion:
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.