KIDDALL VS. TRIMBLE. 147

the plaintiff, it would not be difficult to imagine other grounds
than the want of jurisdiction. We have seen, that whilst that
suit was depending, to wit, on the 8th of April, 1839, the
plaintiff sold and conveyed to another, her dower interest in the
lands in question; and although it may be true, as argued by
the solicitor of the complainant, that this deed transferred
merely her interest in the land, and not her right to the antece-
dent rents and profits, it is yet possible that it may have been
thought that a transfer of the legal estate out of which the
profits arose, carried with it, or extinguished the claim to the
profits themselves. It seems to be settled, that if the widow
die without demanding her dower, the executor cannot recover
the rents and profits; the cases having only gone to the extent
of entertaining a bill for the profits where the widow dies,
pending her bill for dower. Under such circumstances, the
Court of Appeals say, in the case of Steiger vs. Hillen, the
representatives of the widow may, in equity, be allowed the
rents and profits, with this exception, "where the legal estate,
out of which the profits are to spring, is gone, the claim to such
profits falls with it," unless under particular circumstances such
as are adverted to in that case.

Now, in this case, whilst the suit was depending in Balti-
more County Court, for these rents and profits, there was a vol-
untary alienation of the legal estate out of which the profits
sprung—that is, the principal was parted with, and it may be,
that the court thought, the principal being gone, the incident—
the profits-—fell with it. The damages which are given for the
detention of the dower, are regarded as consequential or acces-
sory, and the County Court may have been of opinion, that
they could not be separately demanded. Cases can certainly
be found in which it has been decided, that the claim for mesne
profits cannot be supported, when the property, in respect of
which they were claimed, had been parted with. It is very cer-
tain, that if the action in the County Court, instead of being
for the rents and profits of the land withheld from the widow,
had been for the dower itself, her deed of the 8th of April,
1839, would have been an effectual bar to her recovery; and