Case ID: h-j_3/html/0485-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

West vs. J. & B. Jarrett.
    Aítbai. from a decree of the Court of Chancery. The bill of the complainant, (now appellant.) filed on the 27th of January 1806, stated that a tract of land cabled Norfolk was surveyed for one Moaberry, and the certificate thereof assigned to the complainant on the 2d of September 3794. That J. Jarrell, one of the defendants, (now one of the appellees,) claiming title to the land, the complainant filed a bill against him tor rebel inequity. J he ° ‘ E> on that bill was set out as in IBe/tf vs, Jarrett, l Barr. <S> ’ Johns. 558. The bill further stated, thatJ. Jarrett, and 7 B. Jarrell, the other defendant, (and the other appellee,) have been in possession of the land ever since the year 1785, apd cut down and used the timber therefrom, and •taken the rents and profits until the time of executing the deed from J, Jarrett to the complainant, but whether they took the profits jointly or separately, the could not tell. That immediate!) after the reversal of .the decree, the complainant obtained possession of the land, but the defendants, or either of them, have never account” ed with him for any part of the profits thereof. Prayer, that the defendants may account far the timber and wood cut by them, and for the rents and profits, and for further relief, &c. The defendants, in their answer, stated that they had made considerable improvements on the land more than sufficient to cover all the profits they received from It. They pleaded and relied on the act of limitations as a bar to an account. Commissions were issued and testimony taken.
    
      inD 'ViA^Vom [¿'“'“¡ft “iS! of «íYand,Way|'Tj j*»Bsb5d«wí<ihi tb«>‘i»iid so claim, fill'd n bill sgain.t >< ■' “«a u j, who h.td -neeii m pasión of the land smee 17«A,« fPr a” a,crall,nt oi‘ {j^/üúa t',j£ j1’ljtsu“í¡l,Bll,:<ií» elfTimf ¡“proVemeMs'^n tTiodvaiÜi°«í&>,forwhk'h tuejl um™,'1 aídbtih*y relied an the* act . of ¡imitations as a par to an account.. ITdd, 1, Thai the former decree for a conveyance, &e was not a bar to tías s«nc. Ü. That no allowance ought to be n.üde for improvements nor any ch.irpe ddowed fur the v ood ancl limner cut from the land. 3. That the not oi limitations u bur to the reñís and limits e'.aimed iuc the three jeasa next preceding tur fiimg the bill, *
    
      Kilty, Chancellor, (February term 1810.) The testimony taken under the commission is such as to render it difficult to form a correct opinion as.to the value of the improvements, and the relative value of the land before; it was cleared, and at the time when est obtained possession of the land with the improvements. But on the several points made by the counsel, the chancellor has come to the following conclusion; 1. That the decree of the court of appeals,, for a conveyance of the land by Jarrett to West, instead of vacating the patent as particularly prayed by the bill, is not a bar to the- present suit, inasmuch as no account was prayed, and the decree does not necessarily imply that an account was improper, nor docs it appear that the subject yyas in that respect considered and acted upon by the court. 2., That no allowance ought to be made for improvements, nor any charge allowed for the timber or wood cut from the land'. 3: That the act of limitations pleaded and relied on in the answer, is a bar to the rents and profits claimed for the three years next preceding the filing of the bill. And as. to the fraud alleged by the counsel for the complainant to prevent this plea from being a bar to so much, the chancellor does not perceive that any such fraud is alleged in the present bill,, or that it is to be inferred from the proceedings. In the former suit. The late chancellor stated as the-' grounds of his decree, that the then complainant, West, had not satisfied him that he had an equitable claim to land comprehended in the defendant’s patent of Contestable Manor, and that when the defendant obtained his patent, he was apprised of the said equitable claim. For the reversal of this decree by the late court of appeals, no reason appears, to have been given., 4. That the charges of intern!, as stated in the auditor’s account, are made according to the established practice in such cases, which the chancellor does not see any cause for altering. 5. Thai teonsklering the nature of (he transaction, and the proof of the amount of the rents for former years, a presumption arises that the saíne amount was afterwards received, and it on this presumption only that the sum to he allowed in this decree can be supported. Upon these principles the auditor has been directed to state another account, by which it appears that there is a balance due to the complainant on the. 15th of November 1808, of J178 8 3. Decreed, that the defendants pay to the complainant the said sum of J173 8 3, with interest thereon from the loth of November 1808, until paid. Costs not allowed. From this decree the complainant appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Ciíasé, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Nicholson, and Earle, J.
    Shaaffiinti T. Buchanan, for the Appellant,
    to show that the act of limitations was no bar to the claim for renfs and profits, referred to Pulteny vs. Warren, 6 Ves. 73. Dormer vs. Fortescue 3 Atk. 124; and Schnertzell vs. Chapline, 3 Harr. & M‘Hen. 439.
    
      Martin and Magrudcr, for the Appellees,
    cited Gill vs. Cole, 1 Harr. & Johns. 403, and Sugd. 243.
   DECREE AEF1RMED.