Odger's English Common Law

450 TRESPASS TO LAND.
by a trespasser and an entry by the true owner of land. If,
as we have seen, 1 the man who has a good title to the land
enters upon any portion of it with the intention of taking
possession of the whole, he is deemed in law to be at once in
possession of the whole. If, however, a trespasser enters
upon any portion of the land, even with the intention of
taking possession of the whole, and is promptly ejected by
the occupier, he is never in possession at all ; he has merely
committed a trespass. But if, through the timidity or
acquiescence of the occupier, the trespasser succeeds in
establishing himself in possession of a portion of the land,
nevertheless he is not in possession of the whole, but only of
so much of it as is under his direct physical control. If,
however, the trespasser ejects all other occupiers of the land
or induces them to hold as tenants under him, he will be in
possession of the whole ; for the whole is now under his direct
physical control. And in this event the only remedy of the
rightful owner is an action for the recovery of land.
If the rightful owner of land forcibly enters and ejects a
person wrongfully in possession, he commits, as we have seen, 2
a crime under the old statute 5 Rich. II. st. 1, c. 7. Yet it
seems that the former occupier cannot treat the lawful
possessor as a trespasser, or claim damages for such an entry ;
for the possession shifted as soon as the rightful owner
entered.
" Damages cannot be recovered against the rightful owner for a forcible
entry on land. . . . The
result of the cases appears to me to be this, that,
inasmuch as the possession of the defendant was unlawful, he can recover
no damages for the forcible entry of the plaintiff. He can recover no
damages for the entry, because the possession was not legally his, and he
can recover none for the force used in the entry, because, though the
statute 5 Rich. II. creates a crime, it gives no civil remedy." 4
But if after entry the rightful owner proceed to forcibly eject the former
occupier and his goods, it is by no means clear that the former occupier
cannot sue for the assault and the damage, if any, done to his goods. Can
a forcible entry give such lawful possession as will, in a civil action,
1 See ante, p. 447.
? See ante, p. 170.
»' See Davison v. Wilson