But in this case, it is believed from the proof, that Temple entered after the commencement, and before the expiration of the term of the plaintiff’s tenants, and as he was guilty of a forcible entry upon the pos*202session In fact of the tenants of the plaintiff and not upon his possession; althongh the warrant in this case, was not issued until after the tenants term had expired, and they had themselves abandoned their possession. Yet the landlord, the present plaintiff, cannot maintain this proceeding, and must fail—because, 1st, Temple never was guilty of a forcible entry upon the possession in fact of the plaintiff, nor is he guilty of a forcible de-tainer of a possession of land acquired from the plaintiff, and held or detained contrary to any engage, ment with him. The law has been thus settled by this Court heretofore, in the ease of Yoder's heirs vs Easley, (2 Dana, 246,) and it has been frequently decided in other cases that this summary remedy for forcible entries was allowed by the statute to that person only, whp at the date of the entry had the possession in fact of the premises entered upon.