Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-09-12
OPINION
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
GREEN AND OTnERs V. BIpnIE.

oP'"l"" VI the CouIt In ne examination al
the first question stated by the Court below
we are naturally led Ia The following inquiries :
]. Are the rights and interests of lands Law
ing IN Kentucky, derived from the laws of
virginia prior 10 the separation of Kentucky
| from that State, as valid aud secure under the
above acts as they were under the laws of
| Virginia on the 18th Of December. 1883? IF
they were not, then
| 2diy. Is the Circuit Court, 10 which this
cause Is depending, authorised to declare those
acts, so far as they arc repugnant TO the laws
oil virginia, existing at the above period, un-
constitutional
The material provisions of the act of 1897,
are as follow:
i. That the occupant ofland, from which
he rs evicted by better title is, in all cases, ex
cused from the payment of rents and profits,
accrued prior tO actual notice of the adverse
title, provided his possession 10 lis inception
was peaceable, and he shows plain aud con-
nected title, in law or in equity, deduced from
some record.
Cd. That the claimant is liable to iudg
ment against him for all valuable and lasting
improvements made on the land prior to ac-
tuai notice of the adverse title, after deciucting
| rom the amount the damages " hich the la ID
has sustained by waste or deterioration of the
soil by cultivation
| Sd. AS To improvements made and rents
and profits accrued, after notice of The nd
oerSe tile, the amount of the one was
TO be deducted from that of the other,
and the balance was To be added To or sub
tracted from the estimated value of the i'm
provemeDts made before such notice, as the
nature of the case should require. But il was
proctded by subsequent clause, that in no
case should the successful claimant be obliged
10 pay Tor Improvements made after notice,
more than what should be equal to the rents
ard profits.
9TH. III the improvements exceeded the va
lue OF the land inils unimproved state, the
claimant was allowed the privilege al convey
ing the land Ia the occupant, and receiving in
return The assessed value of without the
improvements, and thus TO protect himself
against Judgment and execution for the va
ue of the Improvements. If ne should de-
cline doing this>h might recover possession
oil ms land, hut then he must pay the esiimat-
| eo value of The improvements and lose also
The rents and profits accrued before notice of
the claim But to eniiie him t0 claim the va
lne of The land, as above mentioned, he must
give BOND and security To warrant the title.
ihr act o! 1919 contains the following pro-
visions Il That the peaceahIe occupant. Of
land, who suppOsps il Ia belong to him, in
virtue ofsomc legal or equitable title, found
ed on record, is TO be paid by the successful
claimant Tor his Improvements. Q. But the
claimant may avoid the payment of the value
4 OF shch Improvements, If he please, by re-
InqnishinS his land 10 the occupant, and be
padns estimated value in its uniinproved
state thus
II he elect TO pay for the value of the i'm
provemen!s, he is 10 give bond and security to
pay the samr, with interest, at different in
stalment5 Ii he fail TO do this or if the va
Tue I'll the improvements exceed three-fourths
the value of The unimpruved land, an election
IS gwen to The occupant 10 have a Judgment
| entered against the claimant for The assessed
value of The land, if unimproved, with interest,
and by insialmcnts.
But If the claimant is not willing TO pay for
the improvements, and they should exceed
three-lourths the value of the unmproveii
land, the occupant is Obliged to give bond and
security To pay the assessed value of the land
with interest, which, ifhe fail to do, Judgment
Is to he entered against him for such value ;
the claimant releasing his right To the land,
and giving bond and security To warrant the
title.
itthe value of the improvements does not
exceed threc-fOurths that of the land, then
the occupant Is not bound las he is in the for
mcr CASEY To give bond aud security to paw the
value OF the land, hat he may claim iudg-
ment for the value of his improvements, or
take the land giving bond aud security, as
before mentioned, tOpay the estimated value
of the land.
g. The exemption of the occupant from
the payment ofthe rents and profits, extends
to all such accrued during his OCCUPANCY .
before Judgment rendered against him la the
/ ilrst instance. But such as accrue after such
Judgment, Tor term not exceeding five wears
as also waste and damages committed by the
occupant gJfer Suu brought, are to- be deduct
cd from The value of the Improvements or
the Court may render judgment for. them a.
! gainst the occupant.
/ D. The amount of such rents and profits.
! damages and waste; also the value uf the i'm
! prOvements, and Of the land, clear of the i'm
lprovements, are To- be ascertained Nv Com
mlssioners, TO be appsiuted by the Court, and
who act ON oath.
These laws differ from each other onlv IN
degree in principle they are The same. They
agree IN depriviBg the righifuI owner of tn!
land Of the rents and profits received Nv the
occupant up 10 y certain period, the FIRST act
lxing Vt iO tie tine OF actual nu'ice Of the adj
verse claim, and the latter nc, tn the time ol
Tie Judgment rendered against the occupant.
Ihey also agree IN compelling the successful
claimant 10 pay, to certain extent, the assess
4 90 value oil the Improvements made On the
land by the occupant
They differ IN the following particulars.
4 J. ny the former act, the improvements 10
he paid for must be- valulble and lasting. By
Tie latter they need not he either
2. by tie former, the successful claimant
was entitled toa deduction from the value nt
the Improvements for all damages susi,iopd
by The land, by waste or determination nr ihe
soil by cultivation, during The occuDaucv Of m,
dGfendant BY The latter, he is entitled fo sncl
4 deduction only for the damages and vast,