Torts · MBE-tested
Shotwell v. Boehm
1 U.S. 1721 Dall. 172·Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas·1786·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Shotwell v. Boehm.
Mesne profits.
Trespass for mesne profits, after recovery in ejectment.
Rawle, for the plaintiff. Sergeant, for the defendant.
[MAJORITY]
■ It was ruled by the Court, that the plaintiff shall not give evidence of the annual value of the premises, beyond the time of the lease mentioned in the declaration in ejectment, although the present action was brought by the lessor of the plaintiff.
s. p. Hare v. Fury, 3 Yeates 14. Under the act of 1806, it has been held, that the recovery in the ejectment is conclusive, as to all damages subsequent to the service of the writ of ejectment, but as to the previous profits, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show his own title, and possession by the defendant. See McCredy v. Guardians, 9 S. & R. 101; Osbourn v. Osbourn, 11 Id. 55.