148 HI&H COURT OP CHANCERY.

hence the County Court may have concluded, that as the
plaintiff's title to recover the land from which the profits were
derived, had been extinguished, by her own voluntary act, the
consequential, or accessorial right to the profits necessarily fell
also.

The judgment of the County Court, against the plaintiff's
right to recover, may have been placed upon another ground
wholly distinct from the question of jurisdiction. The action,
as has been stated, was for money had and received to the
plaintiff's use, and not trespass for the mesne profits. Now, it
aaay be, that the court thought the form of the remedy had been
misconceived. The statute of Merton gives these profits as
damages, and they are to be recovered by action of trespass, as
such profits are sued for, after a recovery in ejectment. The
County Court may then have been of opinion that the action
was misconceived, and, for that reason, have instructed the jury
adversely to the plaintiff, and not, as has been suggested, for
want of jurisdiction. Stockett vs. Watkins, 2 Gill & Johns.,
3S6. Now, if this was the case, and the plaintiff failed in her
action at law, because she had mistaken the form of the remedy,
and not because the tribunal to which she appealed was incom-
petent to relieve her in a different form, it can scarcely be offer-
ed as an answer, when the effect of that judgment (being the
Judgment, in the case supposed, of a court of competent juris-
diction) is pressed as a reason why the defendant should not be
uapleadcd again in a different court, for the same cause-

For these reasons, I am strongly inclined to the opinion, that
as the plaintiff sued for these rents and profits at law, and fail-
ed to recover them there, the question as to them, must, in the
language of the Court of Appeals in Sellman vs. Bowen, be
regarded as res adjudicata, "that they cannot form the subject
of a new litigation, the judgment which has already passed,
having foreclosed the plaintiff."

There is besides another objection, which strikes me as of
great force. This bill was filed on the 2d of November, 1841,
and is to recover the rents and profits of land, her title to which,
the complainant, on the 8th of April, 1839, transferred by her