¶1 The feme plaintiff and the devisor of the defendants were tenants in common of a tract of land; and under proper proceedings bad in Court, partition of the land was made between them, allotting to each a share in severalty. An appeal was taken to this Court upon the objection by the defendants that the commissioners bad divided the wrong tract of land, but the description in the complaint- and in the report were identical, and the objection was held to be “ captious and frivolous.” Wright v. McCormick, 69 N. C. 14.
¶2 The devisor of the defendants • died before the final confirmation of the report of the commissioners and the defendants were made parties defendant, and the report of partition was confirmed and a proper decree made.
¶3 The complaint states that since that time the defendants-have taken possession of the land allotted to plaintiffs. The answer denies every thing and claims title and admits possession, “sole seizin.” Seizin in deed, as this must be taken to be, is possession. the plaintiffs’ proof of title — the record of partition before stated — was complete, and the defendants’ possession was admitted. The plaintiffs were clearly entitled to recover.
¶4 There is no error.
¶5 Pee. Curiam. Judgment affirmed'.