The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-12-17
4. HAPNETr
MASON WEDGE4yoRrH Er Al

| MASON w EDGENeRIH Fl Al
From the Chancefy Court OF Sunaower
County. ". q. Phelps, Chancellor.
Purchase Of tai title by tenant Tares
and permanent Improvements set of against
naesne profits.
J Anpellees, one Of whom is a minor,
TIED the phi ~ yl.~
latio1 CT certain taA deeds under when
the land in dispute vas bella ~ appel
| liant, who originally entered thereon
under an attempted lease from an agent
of the father of appelIees The answer
of appellant denied the validity of the
lease, and set up ten years adverse pos
session. The court decreed possession
to the appellees, and an account of rents
and profits as against permanent i'm
provements and taxes paid by appel
liant.
CHALMERS, J.
Appellees had restitution of their
/ lands upon satisfactory proof made that
| it was bought for the taxes by the appel
| liant at time when he was disabled to
| buy tax title thereto, he being then in
possession as the tenant of their father,
now dead, whose property it was They
did not pay or offer to pay, in money.
the amount of taxes paid out and dam
ages thereon, but asked that an account
be taken, and that the amount found
due defendant for these things shonld
be ct off against the large sums due
themselves by him for mesne profits.
The account was taken by master, and
| the defendant WAS found to be largely
indebted to compliments for the rents
and profits of the land while in his pos
session. This account was confirmed by
the chancellor, and the amount of taxes.
ETC., was decreed to be set off against
the rents and profits.
1t is insisted upon appeal that sums
due for mesne profits cannot be invoked
as an Offset against sums expended in
paying taxes, but that these latter must
always be paid in money, even though
the defendant may owe a much larger
sum for rents. No authority Is found
for this position; but even if true, il
would not affect this case. IL defend
ant was tenant in possession of the
land, he was disabled to buy, and his
purchase enured to them. His pre-
tended purchase was in law theirs; so
they have always been the lawful own
ere. Surely an owner can always reclaim
his own by accounting at the final de
cree for anything that is lawful charge
upon it, and cannot be deprived of the
right of Offset, even in redemption pro-
ceedings, where, as here, the debt due
him is the direct product of the land in
controversy. This, however, is. net solely
an application to redeem, but retlama-
ton of their own by compliments, upon
which equity will fasten lien for all
proper charges. The bill could be main |
tanned, regardless Of the statutes with
reference to a repayment of all taxes
expended in the acquisition of the land
These taxes defendant actually got, so |
far as proved, and it was not incumbent |
upon complainants TO pay them or offer |
to refund them in their original bill.
We cannot notice the errors assigned |
with reference to alleged mistakes in |
stating the accounts, since no exceptions
TO the report of the commissioner were
filed in the lower court. A6frmed.
Nugent 4 Melville, for appellant.
Calhoon & Green, for appeIIees.
Not to be reported.)
NoTE.-On suggestion of error, it APP
pearing to the court that the exceptions
were matters of record, the decree of
the Chancery court was reversed and a
decree was entered here ia accordance
with the principles announced in the
opinion. Brooks z. Robinson, 81 Miss.
279.