STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 67

recovery of the mesne profits, the tenant or defendant, by pleading
the Statute of Limitations, may prevent the plaintiff from carrying
his claim in all cases, as far back as the commencement of his title,
and the wrong he has suffered. And should he proceed in equity,
if there has been a mere adverse possession without fraud or con-
cealment, the account will be taken only from the time of filing the
bill, for it was his own fault not to have filed it sooner. But where
the bill is brought upon an equitable title, and there is a trust; and
in the case of an infant, or where there has been any fraud, and
in cases of dower, an account of the rents and profits will be
ordered, and that from the title accrued. Dormer v. Fortescue, 3
Atk. 124: Pulleny v. Warren, 6 Ves. 73,

In an action of trespass for mesne profits, they are assessed at
the discretion of the jury in damages, and therefore governed by
no settled rule as to the amount. The jury may, if they think
the circumstances of fraud and wrong warrant, or require it, give
large and vindictive damages, even as much as four times the
value of the mesne profits; Goodtitle v. Tombs, 3 Wils. 118; or,
on the other hand, they may mitigate the damages down to almost
nothing; and it does not appear, that their unlimited discretion,
in this respect, has ever been materially controlled by granting
new trials. The Court of Chancery is more steady in its princi-
ples, with regard to the amount of the mesne profits. If the occu-
pant is the mere rightful holder of the property as a pledge; for
example, as mortgagee who has been let into possession, he is
held accountable for no more than he has actually received, what
has really come into his hands, and not for the full value, or what
he might have made by skilful and proper management. But
where the occupant is a wrongful holder, or has obtained posses-
sion, and has held it fraudulently, or where, there * being
several iucumbrauces, the first mortgagee uses his security 74
for the purpose of shielding the debtor from the junior mortgagees;
in such cases, such a Irauduleut or wrongfully occupying tenant, or
an incumbrancer who makes such an ill use of his security, will be
charged with the full value; that is, with such an amount of rents
and profits as a skilful and diligent tenant might have made from
the land. Powell Mortg. 292, n.

In this case, Strike informs us in his answer, that he obtained
possession of the property in question, (the one lot actually, and
the other legally, as landlord of Rogers, on whose property he
levied a distress for rent in arrear,) under and by virtue of the
deeds from Rogers to him, on the date of them, and that he took
and received the whole rents and profits. Those deeds have been
declared null and void by the decree of May, 1822, as against the
complainants, on the ground of fraud. It appears, then, that
Strike obtained possession of the property in question, fraudu-
lently; that he used those deeds against these creditors, and that