
    Buntin and Another, v. Duchane.
    
      •A. having recovered in ejectment against B., sued him for mesne profits and obtained judgment on demurrer. While that suit was pending, B. brought an ejectment against A. for the premises, and recovered. On Ads executing his writ of inquiry, B. offered his judgment in evidence in mitigation of damages; but the record not showing the date of the demise, and that Bds title had commenced before Ads cause of action, it was considered inadmissible.
    ERROR to the Knox Circuit Court. — Vide a statement of ‘the proceedings in this case, previous to the execution of the writ of inquiry, ante, p. 56.
    
    Tabbs, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Dewey, for the defends»!.
   Holman, J.

Trespass for mesne profits by Duchane against Buntin and Dubois. The action was commenced in April, 1819. A writ of inquiry -was awarded, on the execution of which the ’defendants offered in evidence, in mitigation of damages, the record of a judgment entered at May term, 1820, in an action of ejectment, wherein the defendants recovered the same premises of the plaintiff. The Circuit Court rejected the testimony, and the plaintiff had judgment. This j udgment must be affirmed. The record offered in evidence does not show when the demise was laid, nor from What time the defendants claimed the premises. From all that appears, their title may have commenced subsequently to the present cause of action; therefore, their recovery cannot affect Ducharnos claim to. damages, either in law or equity. Benson et al. v. Matsdorf, 2 Johns. R. 369, would support a much weaker case than this. The evidence was properly rejected.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, with 1 per cent, damages and costs.  