cision of the Court in Aislin v. Parkin, in 1 Burr. 1826. 667. But in an action for mesne profits against third persons, who are liable to the action, the record of the recovery in the ejectment, and an executed writ of possession under it, are evidence to prove plaintiff's possession connected with his title.But in relation to third persons, the judgment in ejectment is not conclusive; and if they are sued in an action for mesne profits, which is substantially an action against them as trespassers, they may controvert the plaintiff’s title at large. In such a suit, the record of the ejectment is not evidence to establish the plaintiff’s title; but it seems admissible for another purpose, that is to say, to show the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff may certainly prove his possession connected with his title, by any sufficient evidence in pais; and if his possession has been under a judgment of law, he is entitled to establish it by introducing the record of the recovery, and an executed writ of possession under it.
An action for mesne profits may be maintained against the landlord in fact, who is in possession of the land, by means of his tenants, and by his acts, commands, or co-operation, aids in withholding possession from the plaintiff.The question then is, generally, whether it is competent for the plaintiff to maintain an action for mesne profits against any person who is in possession of the land by means of his tenants, and who, by his acts, commands, or co-operation, aids in the expulsion of the plaintiff, and in withholding possession from him. All persons who aid in, or command, or procure a trespass, are themselves deemed in law to be trespassers, whether they are actually present, or do the act through the instrumentality of their agents and servants. A recovery of the possession, in an ejectment against one of such agents, does not constitute a bar to an action for mesne profits against another agent, for the same reason, that
