
    Comes v. Prior.
    In an ejectment, it is no bar that the title of the land demanded was determined, on a. plea of title in an action of trespass between the same parties.
    This was an action of disseisin, to which the defendant pleaded — That in a former suit between the same parties, wherein, the present plaintiff was defendant, a Yerdict was found, and a judgment rendered against him, on his plea of title to the land now demanded; — and on demurrer, it tras held,
   By the Court.

That the first suit being only an action of trespass, for the recovery of damages, and this being an action for the recovery of the land, is of a higher nature: — - Therefore, the judgment pleaded is not a bar to this suit; for the party may now be able to produce further evidence in support of his title, than was produced on the former trial. And this is admissible by the uniform practice of the courts of law in this state, as well as in England, in favor of estates of inheritance. See Bac. Abrid. 119.

So judgment was for the plaintiff.

Note.— Judge Ellsworth excused himself in this case.  