In the Court below, TTHIS was an action of ejectment. The declaration contained the usual allegations. It began thus: “ In a plea, that to the plaintiff the defend- “ ants render the seizin, and quiet possession of a par- “ cel or tract of land,” &c. It concluded with a demand of damages and costs, and omitted any further demand of seizin and possession.
Decided 1803-07-01
By the Court.
¶1The judgment of the Superior Court was defended on the authority of Hawley v. Castle, (a)and Porter v. Warner, (b) which cases are directly in point; but there appears no sufficient reason to warrant those decisions. The omission in this declaration is, at most, only matter of form; and such a defect is never regarded after verdict. But there is no defect even in point of form. The declaration once demands the seizin of the land, and it concludes with a demand of damages and costs. The declaration, therefore, is apt to the purpose in view, and sufficiently clear and certain, both to a common and legal intent.
¶2The most approved English forms from Lilly’s Entries, and the Pleader’s Assistant, so far as they apply to this declaration, justify it; and the declarations in the actions of debt and ejectment, with respect to the present question, are somewhat analogous.
¶3*136On the general principles of lav.', therefore, and the most approved precedents, the declaration in question is good s and, consequently, the judgment of the Superior Court is erroneous.
