¶1Forcible entry.
¶2The 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.
¶3Certiorari, 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.
¶4It 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—
¶7— There is some informality in the expressions; but *185surely, stating that the prosecutor was disseised, necessarily implies a previous seisin. (a)
¶8Judgment affirmed.