Case ID: scl_12/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Richardson\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martha S. Coleman vs. Roger Parish.
    A recovery in an action' of trespass on lands, is a bar to an actio» to recover mesne profits,- for use and occupation of the same land, anterior to the verdict in trespass.
    !HriIE plaintiff by her next friend brought this process against the defendant for the rent of land, for the years 1317 and 1818.
    At the hearing, it was in evidence that the defendant: had the use of, and planted the plaintiff’s land in 1816, 18Í Í', and 1818. The first year only under a written contract with the plaintiff’s father, in this contract.he agreed to give two dollars per acre for fifteen acres.
    in 1&!9, the defendant, after notice, still held to the plaintiff’s land, and she brought an action of trespass;1 against him. To this action, the defendant made no appearance, although he gave up the land ,• but at the trial he was suffered to shew that he had a possession by contract in the first instance; and the jury, though it was charged that they might find the amount of rent due, found for the plaintiff one cent.
    It was further attempted to be shewn, that defendant after this verdict, and since the commencement of the present suit, acknowledged he had to pay for the land óf the plaintiff which he had used; but the testimony being in conclusion, judge Johnson ordered anon-suit.
    The plahiriff thereupon appealed :
    1st. Because the verdict in the action of trespass ic neither a bar to, nor satisfaction of plaintiff’s claim in this case, that action being defeated by defendant’s shewing 
      there was a contract for rent with the plaintiff’s father for 1816.
    2d. Because the defendant’s acknowledgment that he had to pay for the plaintiff’s land which he had used, is sufficient to charge him. with rent for the two years for which he made no contract.
    Silliman, for the motion.
    Miller, contra.
   Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question is, whether the recovery in the action of trespass is a bar to this action; and it is enough to say that this court has before decided that a recovery in trespass on lands is a bar to the recovery of mesne profits, that is, for the use and occupation of the sarhe land, at any time anterior to the verdict in trespass.

This was decided in the case of Lehre vs. Sumter. The evidence of the after promise to pay, was too imperfect to be relied upon.

The motion is therefore dismissed.

Justices Colcock, Johnson and Huger ^ concurred*