Entry

WRIT OF. In Old Practice. A real action brought to recover the; of lands from one who wrongfully withholds. thereof. Such writs were said to be in the Quibus, where the suit was brought against the party who committed the wrong; in the l'< r, where the tenant against whom the action was brought was either heir or gran; the original wrong-doer; in the Per and (Jul, where there had been two descents, two alienations, or descent and an alienation; iii the Post, where the wrong was removed beyond the degrees mentioned. The above designations are derived from significant Latin words in the respective forms adapt' d to the cases given. A descent or alienation on the part of the disseisor constituted a degree (see Co. Lilt. 2:'j9 a); and at common law the writ could be brought only within the degrees (two), the demandant after that being driven to his writ of right, By the statute of Marlbridge (q. v.), 52 Hen. III. c. 30 (a. d. 12G7), however, a writ of entry, after (post) those degrees had been passed in the alienation of the estate, was allowed. Where there had L descent and the demandant himself had been dispossessed, the writ ran, frccvipe A quod reddat U as terra, etc. de quibus idem A, etc. (command A to restore to B six acres of land, etc., of which the said A, etc.); if there had been a descent after the description came, the clause, in quod idem A non habet ingressum nisi per C qui Mud ci demisit (into which the said A, the tenant, has no entry but through C, who demised it to him); where there were two descents, nisi per D cui C illud demisit (but by D, to whom C demised it); where it was beyond the degrees, nisi post disseisinam quam C (but after the disseisin which C, the original disseisor, did, etc.). The writ was of many varieties, also, according to the character of the title of the claimant and tho circumstances of the deprivation of possession. Booth enumerates and discusses twelve of these, of which some are sur disseisin, sur intrusion, ad communem legem, ad terminum qui preterit, cui in vita, cui ante divortium, etc. Either of these might, of course, be brought in any of the four degrees, as the circumstances of the case required. The use of writs of entry has been long since abolished in England; but they are still in use in a modified form in some states, as the common means of recovering possession of realty against a wrongful occupant; Emerson v. Thompson, J Pick. (Mass.) 473; Tilson v. Thompson, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 359; Bean v. Moulton, 5 N. 11. 450; Rowell v. Mitchell. G3 Me. 21; Day v. Philbrook, 85 Me. 90, 26 Atl. 999; Cole v. Inhabitants of Eastham, 124 Mass. 307; Wilbur v. Ripley, 124 Mass. 468; Pettingell r. Boynton, 139 Mass. 244, 29 N. E. 655; Tappan v. Power Co., 151 N. E. 703, 16 L. R. A. 353. See Stearn, Real Act.; Booth, R. A.; Co. Litt 238 b. To maintain a writ of entry, the demandant who declares on his own seisin, and alleges a disseisin, is required to prove only that he has a right of entry and need not prove an actual wrongful dispossession or an