
    Duffield versus Stille.
    THIS was an action, for mesne profits, after a recovery in ejectment. It appeared, that subsequent to that recovery, the plaintiff had conveyed the fee simple of the premises to the defendant, in the usual manner, by deed of bargain and dale, with a special warranty: And two questions were made for the opinion of the Court—1st. Whether, after the conveyance in see Ample, the plaintiff could maintain this action? 2d. Whether the deed was not, in law, are lease of the mesne profits?
    For the defendant were cited, Freem. 365. Bro. Ass. 62. s. 369. 359. 8 Co. 154; a Litt. 508. But,
   By the Court:

—The case is clearly with the plaintiff, Let there be

Judgment accordingly. 
      
       Bradford, Justice: Having been counsel for the plaintiff, I give no opinion in the decision of the cause.
     