STRIKE'S CASE 73

to keep the adjudication upon the title entirely apart from the direc-
tion 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, (f)

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
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 time the title accrued.(g)

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 ;(h) or, on the other hand, they may mitigate
the damages down almost to 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 principles, with regard to the amount of the mesne
profits. If the occupant 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 manage-
ment. But where the occupant is a wrongful holder, or has
obtained possession, and has held it fraudulently, or where, there

(f) 1 Bac. Abr. tit. Accompt, B.; 2 Sac, Abr. tit. Damages; Shish. v. Foster,
1 Ves. S3', Dormer v. Fortescue, 3 Atk. 124; Pulteny v.Wairen, 6 Ves. 73,—
(g) Denser v. Fortescue, 3 Atk. 124; Pulteny v. Wamn, 0 Ves, m—(h) Goodtitle
v. Tombs, 3 Wils. 118

10