EJECTMENT (from eject, from Lat. cjiccre, to throw out, from c, out jay( cc, to throw), ACTION or. An action brought to recover posses sion of land, and also to obtain damages for its being wrongfully withheld from the person who brings the suit. This, in the common hue prac tice, is the only surviving of a mixed action: that is. one partaking in part of the na ture of a real action for the recovery of the land, in part that of a personal action for damages. The origin of the action is to be found in the old writ of eject io Jirvncr, nr teenier (ejectment from a term of years), which (originally only an action in trespass, whereby a tenant for years could recover damages for an eviction or ouster) was so shaped as to entitle him to recover the possession of his lands. Being a simpler and more expeditious remedy than the various pos sessory actions provided by the common law, such as the merit of nerd/ dissei8in. and the like. for re covering the possession of freehold lands, it came in process of time to be employed for this pur pose in all cases of wrongful dispossession until it had completely superseded the more cumber some remedies afforded by the common-law writs.
The process of establishing title to real estate by this action was formerly—and still is, in sonic jurisdictions—a most intricate and serious one. .:1s has been said above, the original action of ejectment was brought, not.to recover the land itself, but to recover damages for the injury sus tained on account of being deprived of the use of the land for a certain term. To maintain such an action the plaintiff was obliged to show: (1) tlood title in the owner alleged: (2) a lease by him: (3) entry on the land by his lessee; (4) outer from the lanai. But as, when it was de sired to test the question of title. this state of facts very likely might not exist, and as common law procedure had provided no other way of test ing the title, a series of fictions was introduced into the case.
In England this form of action of ejectment was abolished in 1852, the name was still retained. By the judicature :acts of 1875 actions for the recovery of land were placed on the same footing as other action:,•and what had been retained of the old w action was su perseded by a simple and uniform method. Legis
lation to a similar effect has been adopted in several of the United States: in others the action of ejectment is maintained in much the same condition in which it was left after the English act of 1852: in a very few others the ancient form is still in use. The remedy given by an action of ejectment is one that may ordi narily be used for the recovery only of corporeal property, not of incorporeal hereditaments, such as an easement or a profit 11 preadre. though there are a few' instances of its use for the latter pur pose also; nor will such an action lie to recover personal property. An action of ejectment may be brought by any one who 11;a, the legal right to enter and possess the lanai, without regard to the exact character of his estate therein; and any person may he made defendant who has wrongfully seized or held the property under a claim of right against one holding a lawful estate therein. The burden of proof of title lies with the plaintiff. the presumption of law being in favor of the actual possessor, who need not, therefore. prove his own title otherwise than against the plaintiff. The verdict in an eject ment suit is for the plaintiff to recover peace able possession of the land, or for the defendant to retain his possession. Under the old practice the damages which might be given to the plain tiff. together with possession. were purely nom inal: a supplementary suit might be brought if substantial damages were really demanded. Ent tinder the later English practice, and certainly in several of our States, substantial damages may he granted in the original action. Such damages may also be in the nature of an accounting for niesne, or intermediate, profits. (See AcnoN; PossEsstax, L.tw : TITLE; LEASEIIOLD: ESTATE. Consult : 111aek,tone'S Commentaries on the Lows of England: Stephen. Veit commen tortes on the Laws of England (13th ed. London, 1599) ; Digby, Introduction to the History of the Lure of Beal Property (5th ed. Oxford, 1899) ; Pollock and Maitland, //istory of English Law ed. Boston, 1599),