TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hylton v. Brown

Hylton v. Brown, 12 F. Cas. 1133 (1808)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
April 15, 1808
Judges
Washington
Citations
12 F. Cas. 11332 Wash. C. C. 165
Headnotes
Case No. 6,983. Aoiion roa Mesne Profits — What Can be Recovered. 1. Action for mesne profits. The plaintiff can recover mesne profits, in the nature of damages, only from the time of the ouster laid in the declaration, having proved no title prior thereto. [Cited in Beverly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 440.] 2. The value of the improvements made by the defendant, ought to be first set against the mesne profits prior to the actual ouster, and after the title of the plaintiff accrued; and the balance, only, can be properly deducted from the rents and profits to which the plaintiff is entitled. [Cited in Thrasher v. Tyack, 15 Wis. 258.]
Summary
. Action to recover mesne profits, from the time of the ouster, laid in the declaration, to the time when possession was delivered under the habere facias possessionem, in 1806. The defendant gave evidence of improvements made on the land by the defendant, prior to the time of the demise laid, and of others subsequent to that period. Proof was given by the plaintiff of the value of the rents. The defendant held the possession some years anterior to the date of the demise.- read 3 Wells, 118.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Washington

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice

(charging jury). This is a claim for mesne profits in the nature of damages, the value of which you are to estimate. Against this demand, the value of the improvements when the plaintiff received possession, is a fair offset. But the plaintiff, having proved no title, except under the recovery in ejectment, can recover damages only from the time of the demise laid in the declaration of ejectment. The value of the improvements ought first to be set against the mesne profits received by the defendant, prior to that period, and after the plaintiff’s title accrued: and the balance only, if any, may properly be deducted from the rents and profits to which the plaintiff was entitled subsequent to the demise.

Verdict for upwards of 2,000 dollars.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1833–1834: 11845–1846: 11851–1852: 11863–1864: 11869–1870: 11901–1902: 118332026peak 1833 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Beverly v. Burke9 Ga. 440 (1851)
  2. Parsons v. Moses16 Iowa 440 (1864)
  3. Powell v. Smith2 Watts 126 (1833)
  4. Tongue v. Nutwell31 Md. 302 (1869)
  5. Stofflit v. Troxell8 Watts & Serg. 340 (1845)
  6. Phillips v. Stewart87 Mo. App. 486 (1901)

Most recent

  1. Phillips v. Stewart87 Mo. App. 486 (1901)
  2. Tongue v. Nutwell31 Md. 302 (1869)
  3. Parsons v. Moses16 Iowa 440 (1864)
  4. Beverly v. Burke9 Ga. 440 (1851)
  5. Stofflit v. Troxell8 Watts & Serg. 340 (1845)
  6. Powell v. Smith2 Watts 126 (1833)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list