Case ID: sc-eq_11/html/0090-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Harper, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

* John Backler, and others, vs. W. Farrow, and others.
    On a bill for partition, the Court, in ordering an account for rents and profits, may also decree compensation for the deterioration of the land by cultivation, as for waste. [*111]
    Spartanburgh. — June, 1834.
    The bill in this case was filed for partition. The defendants had been for many years in possession of the land, and cultivated it, by which its value was impaired The Appeal Court in December, 1832, after partition had been made, ordered an account to be taken of the rents and profits, and in the opinion of the Court the following language is held: “ Rent, which the land was rendered capable of producing by the labor and expense of the tenant in possession, as by erecting buildings, or clearing, or draining lands, is not to be taken into the account. But if by any of these means, the land has deteriorated in value, he is accountable for this as for waste. The motion is granted, and a reference on these principles ordered.” On the reference, it appeared that the whole of the land had been rendered capable of producing rent by the labor of the defendants, and that it had also deteriorated in value in consequence of their cultivation to an amount reported by the Commissioner. On exception being taken to the report, the Chancellor sent it back to the Commissioner, on the ground that it was not made up in conformity to the decree of the Appeal Court.
    The plaintiffs now move this Court to reverse the decision of the Chancellor, and to confirm the report.
    
      Bobo, for the appellants,
    submitted the ease on the above brief, without argument.
   Harper, J.

This case is very imperfectly presented to us in the absence of counsel. The exception to the Commissioner’s report seems to have been sustained on the ground that damages for waste cannot be recovered in this Court; the remedy being at law. This, no doubt, is in general true; but having proper jurisdiction of the case, there is hardly any question in relation to property, which this Court may not determine incidentally for the purpose of doing complete justice, and preventing multiplicity of litigation. The rule is laid down in the case of Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk. 262; Amb 54, that a bill will not lie for waste merely; but, if the party be properly in Court for another purpose, *as to obtain an injunction, then an account of past waste will be granted. The principle is very fully illustrated in the reasoning of the case. There are many cases in which an account has been allowed of the produce of mines ; and the opening of mines is waste. There is no question but that the Court was properly in possession of this case, and incident to it was the account for rents and profits, and the account for waste.

The motion is therefore granted, and the Commissioner’s report confirmed.

Johnson, J., and O’Neall, J., concurred.