Joan v. Shield's Lessee

The Court overruled the reasons, and entered judgment on the inquisition for the damages therein, and the costs of suit. Martin, (Attorney-General,) S. Johnston and Ridgely, for the defendant. ¿', Johnston, for the defendant in error. This was an ejectment brought for lands in Baltimore county, and recovered. A writ of inquiry of damages has been executed, returned by the sheriff, and final judgment thereon.

The errors assigned are the general ones, but it seems that the particular error is, that no writ of inquiry ought to issue in this case. I shall therefore show, that a writ of inquiry may well lie in this case, and as this court can only judge of errors in the ‘ record before them, I shall confine myself to what appears therein. It appears from the record, that the lessor of the plaintiff recovered the lands contained in the writ of ejectment, on which a writ of possession issued, and the plaintiff was restored to his land. That for the damages sustained by the said entry and ouster, a writ of inquiry was issued on the said judgment ; and the jury, who were respectable inhabitants of that county, were so well satisfied that the entry and ouster was so violent as to deserve exemplary damages, that they gave such as should deter others from such proceedings; they showed their detestation of the same, and gave damages accordingly.

This will appear on viewing the quantity of land recovered. It could not be for any mesne profits, for they were insignificant, as nothing of that sort appears on the record, and the jury were the proper judges of the damages sustained by the entry and ouster; the law will always presume that what they have done is right. A writ of inquiry ought to issue in this case, to recover damages sustained, after a judgment to recover the land. 2 Bac. Abr. 181.

The plaintiff in ejectment, if he prevails, is to recover damages sustained in the particular act of ouster complained of. Pract. Reg. of the Com. Pleas, 62. ⁹ By Holt, Chief Justice.

After a judgment to recover the lauds, and before a writ of inquiry executed, a writ of error will lie. Carth. 205. The reason, as. I take it, is, that it is a mixed action, whereby the land may be recovered, and a writ of possession may issue for that purpose, which completes that part of the judgment; and damages for the ouster are to be ascertained by the writ of inquiry, for which a ca. sa. or a fi, fa. may be issued.

This case shows that a writ of inquiry may issue to ascertain the damages, and. so the usual proceedings thereon have been, as appears by Lilly's Ent. 606. There was a writ of inquiry after a recovery in ejectment, together with the writ of possession, and was expressly to ascertain the damages sustained by reason of the trespass and ejectment. And an action also lies for the mesne profits. In Strange, 1056.

After a special verdict in ejectment, on the death of the lessor of the plaintiff, who was tenant for life, the plaintiff has a right to proceed for damages and costs; which in that case, after verdict, must-have been by writ of inquiry of damages, in case the judgment was given in his favour. Buller's Nisi Prius, 80. says, it seems certain that the plaintiff may recover the whole mesne profits in the ejectment, and that it is apparent, from the 16 and 17 Car. II. which enacts, that in case the judgment be affirmed on the writ of error, the court may award a writ of inquiry, as well of the mesne profits as of the damages by any waste committed after the first judgment. It will be said, that in ejectment the damages are merely nominal, and it is not usual to recover large damages for the ouster; that as it is but a rare thing that the entry and ouster is any other than fictitious, and no damages could be proved, they are, therefore, mostly small.

But where the entry and ouster is actual, as in the present case, there can be no doubt but the party