66 STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

the right to the land was determined, the party could not be said
to suffer any wrong. But it seems to have been considered as well
established law, from a very remote period, that the right to main-
tain an action of trespass for the recovery of the mesne profits,
followed as a clear and necessary consequence of the party's hav-
ing established his right to the land itself. And it appears to be
somewhat singular, that, during the period when real actions were
much in use, the Legislature should have deemed it necessary to
interpose, for the purpose of allowing, by positive provision,
the demandant, in many of them, to recover damages, or rents
and profits; and yet, that those real actions, so amended and im-
proved, should have been superseded by the action of ejectment,
in which, as it now seems to be settled, nothing is recovered but
the land, and the party is left, as at common law, to recover the
mesne profits in a separate action of trespass. But the right to
recover the mesne profits by way of damages in the modern action
of ejectment itself, is recognized by an English statute, passed in
the year 1664, and the practice of so recovering them, seems to
have prevailed for some time in England, and also in this State.
2 Bac. Abr. tit. Ejectment, H; 16 & 17 Car. 2, c. 8; Goodtitle v.
Tombs. 3 Wils. 129; Lewis v. Beale, 1 H. & McH. 185; Joan &
McCubbin v. Shields, 3 H. & McH. 7; Gore's Lessee v. Worthing-
ton, 3 H. & McH. 96.

As early as the year 1667, in a case where lands were settled for
the payment of debts, the trustees were held accountable inequity
for the rents and profits to the creditors for whom they were re-
ceived; and in 1685, it was held, by the Court of Chancery, that
he who took the mesne profits by wrong, was considered as trustee
for, and accountable to him who had the right; and thenceforward
the Court of Chancery made all persons account for the mesne
profits they had received, to such persons as had the equitable
title. And it is now settled, that where there is a serious difficulty
in recovering at law, fraud, concealment, or the like, or where the
title is merely equitable, the party may recover the rents and
profits inequity. Norton v. Frecker, 1 Afk. 525. But in Chancery,
as in the Courts of common law, there seems to have been always
a strong disposition * to keep the adjudication upon the title
73 entirely apart from the direction as to the mesne profits. It
is not improper that the final decree, settling the right to the
property, should also go on and decree an account for the rents and
profits; but it is usual, where the property is sold, as in this case,
to leave the account of the rents and profits to be provided for in
the subsequent and further directions. 1 Bac. Abr. tit. Accompt,
B; 2 Bae. Abr. tit. Damages; Shish v. Foster, 1 Ves. 88; Dormer
v. Fortescue, 3 Atk. 124; Pulteny v. Warren, 6 Ves. 73.

Where the party has no equitable ground of relief, and is under
the necessity of proceeding at law, by an action of trespass for the