
    Anne Cox and Others versus John Callender.
    Trespass for mesne profits does not lie after a recovery upon a writ of entry, unless the plaintiff had a right of entry.
    This was an action of trespass for mesne profits, and came before the Court upon the following case : —
    The plaintiffs, at the Supreme Judicial Court for this county, March term, 1810, recovered judgment against said Callender for seisin and possession of the premises, whereof the rent is demanded in this action, being twenty-three undivided seventieth parts of the messuage and land described in the declaration. The judgment was founded on *a writ of entry, in which the plaintiffs declared that said Callender had no entry, but after the disseisin which one Lemuel Cox did to the plaintiffs within thirty years previous to the date of that writ. The said Cal-lender pleaded to said action, that said Lemuel Cox did not disseise those demandants, as they alleged in their writ. The jury found that Lemuel Cox did disseise the demandants; and they also as sessed, in favor of said Callender, for the buildings and improvements made by the said Callender, and those under whom he claimed, the sum of 476 dollars 33 cents, which the plaintiffs paid to him ; and on the 28th day of June, 1810, the plaintiffs received seisin and possession of the demanded premises, in virtue of a writ of habere facias possessionem issued on said judgment. The disseisin done to the plaintiffs by the said Lemuel Cox, as aforesaid, was more than twenty years previous to the date of the said writ of entry served on the said Callender; and the said Lemuel Cox, and those who claimed under him, had quiet seisin of the premises for more than twenty years next before the date of said writ. Said Callender had possession of the premises for the whole space of six years previous to the date of the writ in this action, which was the 18th of June, 1810.
    If, on the above state of facts, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover in this action for mesne profits, judgment was to be rendered for the plaintiffs, for the amount of rents received by the defendant within six years next before the date of the writ, deducting any sums he should have paid for taxes or repairs during the same time; but if the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover in this action, they were to become nonsuit, and the defendant to have judgment for his costs.
    
      Amory,
    
    in support of the action, cited Bacon’s Abr. Title Damages, A. — 3 Black. Comm. 210. — 11 Co. 51, Liford’s case. —Buller’s N. P. 86. — Cro. Eliz. 540.
    
      Jackson, for the defendant,
    contended that where the right of entry was gone, the disseisee has no remedy for *the mesne profits; and he cited Liford’s case, before mentioned. — Hob. 98. — 2 Inst. 286. — 7 D. & D. 727.
    — Brownl. Abr. Trespass, 35, 302. — Hetl. 66.
   By the Court.

To maintain trespass, one must have a right of entry, and perhaps an actual entry is necessary. . When a disseisee enters, having a right of entry, he changes the disseisin into a trespass. But on the facts in the present case, it is very clear the plain tiffs cannot maintain their action,

Plaintiffs nonsuit. 
      
      ,) [Vide Fletcher vs. Macfarlane, 12 Mass. Rep. 46.— Taylor vs. Townsend, 8 Mass Rep. 415. — Sed vide Emerson vs. Thompson, 2 Pick. 473. —Ed.]
     