At common law, this was the name of a mixed action (springing from’he earlier personal action of ejectione firmce) which lay for the recovery of the possession of land, and for damages for theunlawful detention of its possession. The action was highly fictitious, being in theoryonly for the recovery of a term for years, and brought by a purely fictitious person, aslessee in a supposed lease from the real party in interest. The latter’s title, however,must be established in order to warrant a recovery, and the establishment of such title,though nominally a mere incident, is in reality the object of the action. Ilence thisconvenient form of suit came to be adopted as the usual method of trying titles to land.See 3 Bl. Comm. 199. French v. Robb, 67 N. J. Law, 260, 51 Atl. 500, 57 L. R. A. 956.91 Am. St. Rep. 433; Crockett v. Lashbrook, 5 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 538, 17 Am. Dec. 9S;Wilson v. Wightman, 36 App. Div. 41, 55 N. Y. Supp. S06; Hoover v. King, 43 Or. 281,72 Pac. 880. 65 L. R. A. 790. 99 Am. St. Rep. 754 ; Hawkins v. Reichert, 28 Cal. 536.It was the only mixed action at common law. the whole method of proceeding inwhich was anomalous, and depended on fictions invented and upheld by the court forthe convenience of justice, in order to escape from the inconyen- iences which werefound to attend the ancient forms of real and mixed actions.It is also a form of action by which possessory titles to corporeal hereditaments maybe tried and possession obtained.