Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-09-12

owner asserted, Ddu Oten abandoned. HOWN
different is the principle ofthis case from that
which governs the same subject by the act
under consideration. BY this, the principle
is applicable to all cases, whether at law or in
equity-whether the claimant knew or did not
know of his rights, and of the improvements
which were making nn the land, and even af-
ter he had asserted his right by suit.
The rule of the English Court at Chancery
as laid down in II Mldd. Chanc. 72.) is fully
supported by the authorities To which he re-
fers. 1t is, that equity allows an account of
rents and profits in all eases, from the time of
the title accrued, provided that do not ex-
coed SIX years, unless under special circum-
stances as where the defendant had no no
tlce of the plaintiffs title, nor had the deeds
and writings in his custody, in which the
PLAINTIFF title appeared or where there has
been laches in the plaintiff in not asserting his
title nr where the plaintiffs title appeared
by deeds in strangers custody in all which
cases, and others similar to them in principle ,
the account is confined to the time of fling
the bill. The language Of Lord Hardwicke,
IN Dormer V. ForteScue, q nix. 1881 which
was the case ofan infant plaintiff, is remarka-
bly, strong. Nothing" he observes, can be
clearer, both in law and equity, and from ma
tural justice, than that the plaintiff is entitled
To the rents and profits from the time when
his title accrued" His lordship afterwards
adds, that" where the title of the plaintiff is
purely equiable,that Court allows the account
of rent and profits from the time the title ac-
crued, unless under special circumstances,
such as have been referred to-"
Nor is it understood by the Court, that the
principles of the act under consideration can
he indicated by the doctrines Of the civil law,
admitting, which we do not, that those doc
Gines were recognized by the laws of Virginia
or by the decisions of her courts.
The exemption ofthe occupant by that law,
from an account for profits, is strictly confined
TO the case of a BONG fdei possessor, who not
only Snpposes himself To be the true proprietor
of the land, but who is ignorant that his title
Is contested by some other person claiming a
better right to it. Most unquestionably, this
character cannot be maintained, for a mo-
ment, after the occupant has notice of an adj
verse claim, especially, il that be followed up
by suit to recover the possession. After
This. he becomes male .jfdei possessor, and
holds at his peril, and is liable to restore all the
mesne profits, together with the land, (JuSt
Lib. ., tit |, S. So
There is another material difference between
the civil law and the provisions of this act, alto
gether favorable to the right of the successful
claimant. BY the former, the occupant is en-
titled only TO those fruits or profits of the land
which were produced by his own industry,
and not even to those unless they were con-
sumed; ifthcy were realized, and contributed
Ia enrich the occupant, he is accountable for
them to the real owner, as he is for all the
natural fruits of the land. See Just the sect
before quoted. Lord Kdimes, b. 4. CLIP gil
Ell seq PufendoJ, indeed, (B. 4, C. Z, 8. S,
lays II down In broad and general terms, that
fruits OF industry as well as those of nature
belong 10 him who is master of the thing from
which they flow.
BY the act in question, the occupant is not
accountable for profits from whatever source
they may have been drawn, or however they
may have been employed, which were recev-
ed by him prior to the Judgment ofe,ction.
But even these doctrines If the civil law so
much more favorable 10 the rights of the true
owner of the land than the act under conside.
ratipn, are not recognised by the common law
of England. Whoever takes and holds th,.
possession of land to which another has bet
ter title, whether by disseisin, or under grant
from The dIsseisor, is liable tn the true owner
Tor the profits ~bich AZ has received, Of what
ever nature they may be, and whether con
sumed by him or not: and the owner may
even seize them, although removed from the
land, as has already been shown hy IiG.rdS
case.
We are not aware Of any common law case
which recognises the distinction between a
6o13 jidei pOssrssor, and one who holds
aidia tide, in relation to the subject of rents and
profits; and we understand Liford'S case, as
frIly proving, that the right of the true owner
10 the mcsne profits, is equally valid against
both. How far this distinction is noticed in a
Court of equity has already hren shown.
upon the whole, then, we take ii TO he per-
tectIy clear, that, according to the common
law, the statute law of Virginia, the principles
OF equity, and even those of the civil law, the
successful Claimant ofland is entitled to an ac-
count 1.-THE nesne profits received by the Oc-
cuPant from some period prior to the judy
meni OF eviction, or decree. In real action
as his is, no restriction whatever is imposed
by the law of Virginia upon the recognors, in
assessing the damages for the demandant, ex-
cept that they should be commensurate Will
Toe Withholding of the possession
1T this act Of Kentucky renders the right,
of claimants to lands under Virginia, less ,aliC
and secure than they were under the laws oil
Virginia, by depriving them of the fruits o
their land, during its occupation by another
ITS pr"visloHs, in regard To the value of the
Improvements put upon the land by the Occu
pant, can, with still less reason, be vindicaR 1
Ii Is not alleged by any person, that such
ctum was ever sanctl0ned by any law Of Vir-
Elna, or by her Courts of Justice. The cas-,
of SoltthoA N'kean has already been notice.
and commented upon. Ii is laid down, we adj
init, IN COuHe''s case, % Cou. SOL that Oh,
dIsaei5pr, upon 4 recovery against him, may
recoup the damages TO the value Of a tina
be has expended in amending the houses
(Src' also. Bro. 1T. DamogeS pL g., whC
cites ~ EtCd. III. Sol If any common law
decision has ever gone beyond the principl,
here laid down, We have not been fortunaf,
en0Ggh to meet with il. The doctrine o.
COutter's cGse Is not dissimar in principle
from llat which lord Knimes cnnaidrrs I'M h.