On the trial of such issue, the plaintiff is required to establish and the defendant may deny, the time when such defendant entered into the possession of the premises, the time during which he or she enjoyed the mesne profits thereof, and the value of such profits; and the record of the recovery in the action of ejectment shall not be evidence of such time. On such trial, the defendant shall have the same right to set off any improvements made on the premises, to the amount of the plaintiff's claim, as is now or shall hereafter be judicially allowed; and in estimating the plaintiff's damages, the value of the use by the defendant of any improvements made by him or her shall not be allowed to the plaintiff.
6-138.Extent of recovery.
Article VI. Ejectment · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 20, 2026
In one sentenceSets the proof for a mesne-profits trial -- the time of entry, the length of possession, and the profits' value -- bars using the ejectment judgment record as proof of timing, and lets the defendant offset improvements against the plaintiff's claim.
Full Text of 735 ILCS 5/6-138
Plain-English Summary
This section fills in the specific proof and offsets that 6-137 references when it subjects a jury's mesne-profits assessment to Article VI's restrictions. On trial of the mesne-profits issue, the plaintiff must establish, and the defendant may deny, three things: when the defendant entered into possession of the premises, how long the defendant enjoyed the mesne profits, and the value of those profits.
The section closes one evidentiary shortcut: the record of the recovery in the ejectment action itself is not evidence of that timing. The plaintiff has to prove entry, duration, and value independently rather than relying on the earlier ejectment judgment to establish when possession began.
The defendant, in turn, gets a specific offset. The defendant may set off any improvements made on the premises against the plaintiff's claim, up to the amount of that claim, to the extent such a set-off is judicially allowed. A related limit protects the defendant from double counting on the other side: in estimating the plaintiff's damages, the value of the defendant's own use of improvements the defendant made is not allowed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot claim, as part of mesne profits, rental value attributable to improvements the defendant added.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must the plaintiff establish at trial of the mesne-profits issue?
The time the defendant entered into possession, the time during which the defendant enjoyed the mesne profits, and the value of those profits.
Can the plaintiff rely on the ejectment judgment record to prove when the defendant entered?
No. The section states the record of the recovery in the ejectment action shall not be evidence of that time.
Can the defendant offset improvements against the plaintiff's mesne-profits claim?
Yes, up to the amount of the plaintiff's claim, to the extent such a set-off is judicially allowed.
Can the plaintiff claim rental value for improvements the defendant made?
No. In estimating the plaintiff's damages, the value of the defendant's use of any improvements made by the defendant is not allowed to the plaintiff.
How does this section relate to 6-137's reference to Article VI restrictions?
This section supplies the specific proof requirements and the improvement offset that 6-137 has in mind when it subjects the jury's assessment to Article VI's restrictions.
Amendment History
(Source: P.A. 83-707.)
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Illinois Compiled Statutes, published by the
Illinois Compiled Statutes, Illinois General Assembly / Legislative Reference Bureau. Last verified July 20, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: proving mesne profits illinois ejectmentoffsetting improvements against mesne profitsvalue of improvements ejectment illinoisejectment judgment not evidence of entry date