ENTRY, WRIT OF. In Old Practice. A real. action brought to recover the possession of lands from one who wrongfully withholds possession thereof.
Such writs were said to be in the Quibus, where the suit was brought against the par ty who committed the wrong; in the Per, where the tenant against whom the action was brought was either heir or grantee of the original wrong-doer ; in the Per and Cut, where there had been two descents, two alienations, or descent and an alienation; itt the Post, where the wrong was removed be yond the degrees mentioned.
The above designations are derived from signifi cant Latin words in the respective forms adapted to the cases given. A descent or alienation on the part of the disseisor constituted a degree (see Co. Litt. 239 a) ; and at common law the writ could be brought only within the degrees (two), the demand ant after that being driven to his writ of right. By the statute of Marlbridge (q. v.), 52 Hen. III. c. 30 (A. n. 1267), however, a writ of entry, after (post) those degrees had been passed in the alienation of the estate, was allowed. Where there had been no descent and the demandant himself had been dis possessed, the writ ran, Prenipe A. quod xeddat B sex acras terra:, etc. de quibus idem A, etc. (com 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 Bind ei dem isit (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 i/lud dem isit (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 dis seisor, did, etc.).
The writ was of many varieties, also, according to the character of the title of the claimant and the circumstances of the deprivation of possession. Booth enumerates and discusses twelve of these, of which some &re sur disseisin, sur intrusion, ad com munem legem, ad terminwm qui preterit, cid 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 Eng land ; 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, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 473; Tilson v. Thompson, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 359; Bean v. Moulton, 5 N. H. 450 ; Rowell v. Mitchell, 68 Me. 21 ; Day v. Philbrook, 85 Me. 90, 26 Atl. 999 ; Cole v. Inhab itants of Eastham, 124 Mass. 307; Wilbur v. Ripley, 124 Mass. 468 ; Pettingell v. Boynton, 139 Mass. 244, 29 N. E. 655 ; Tappan v. Power Co., 157 Mass. 24, 31 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 demand ant who declares on his own seisin, and al leges a disseisin, is required to prove only that he has a right of entry and need not prove an actual wrongful dispossession or an adverse possession by the tenants; Twomey v. Linehan, 161 Mass. 91, 36 N. E. 590.