Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-27
COURT DECISIONS.
DIoESTED BY w. B. MARTIN.
tExclusively for virginian-Pilot,
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided.
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
HOLT v. COUCH.

Supreme Court of North Carolina,
December 10, 1899.
A TENANT IN COMMON IN pos
SESSION WHO MAKES IMPROVE
MENTS WHICH ARE TACITLY
ALLOWED BY HIS Co-TENANTs,
WILL BE ALLOWED FOR THEM
IN ACCOUNTING FOR RENTS FOR
THE LAND.
Holt and defendant. were tenants in
erected building thereon, Holt died
ana the plaintiffs became the owners
or his one-half Of said property, they
being non-resldents of the State After
Hollis death defendant remained in
sole possession and management of the
additions. changes and improvements
III the building, paying for them, and
and for all taxes, insurance and repairs
anu collecting the rents for same. The
plaintiffs took no active part in It's
management. Afterwards they brought
sun for one-half the rents and to sell
The property for partition.
An order of sale was made, without
prejudice to the rights of either party
US 10 improvements or rents put upon,
or arising out Of, said real estate. At
august term. 1898, the case was re-
ierred, to take an account, etc The
reieree reported that the defendant be
charged with one-h half the rental value,
10 VII. $500, and credited with onc-half
OF the value of the improvements, to
W.T. S4G0, and with onc-half OF the
amount expended In paying taxes and
insurance OH The property, TO wit, 1885. so
ana that there is balance of sl0i. 80
due the defendant by the plaintiffs on
said account This report was con-
ilrtned by the court, and Judgment en-
tered accordingly from which the
plaintiffs appeaed.
The court says:
The plaintiffs, by their exceptions. do
not pointedly present the legal proposi-
tons relied on by their counsel I'm his
argument, hut we consider them ac-
cording to his contention. They are Cd
that co-tenant. except by additions.
chanEe In the structure, etc, as dis
tlnguished from repairs, etc, for pre-
servatlon of The property; (2) that In
no event. except by consent can n CO.
tenant In sole possession cxpend more
man the rents and income of the Dro-
perry, and charge his co-tenants there
with. because that would put IL in his
power by recklcssness to impair the
value. or indirectly dispose Of the value
OF his co-tenantS' interest, presumably
for his own benefit.
To avoid confusion, we may here
state that Code. D. 1872, c. 10. on close
examination has no application to ten
ants in common. That provision is
Tor the protection of a purchaser of
land who makes lasting improvements
under the belief that he had n good
title. After judgment Is entered
against him for the land, he may. Ms
herein provided have an allowance for
the improvements, usually called bet
terment"
running. then, to the case at bar
we discover from review of the record
tnat the common property was of small
value at the time the improvements
commenced; that the defendant. in the
exercise of his honest judgment, con-
celved the purpose of making q change
In the building suited TO local condl-
tons: and that the plaintiffs gave no
attention to their property for several
years, and tacitly allowed the defend
ant to manage ii as he deemed best,
and finally demanded by action full
rents for the improved condition of
the property; and no suggestion of bad
faith or positive wrongful conduct on
the part of The defendant is made II
appears in general way that dlsap-
pointment and loss took place bv req son
of fluctuations in values at Southern
Pines as health and pleasure resort
1t does not appear that the defendant
has abused the confidence of his CO.
tenants. or his position in relation to
the property. He bears half of the
depreciation in the value of tho Dro-
perty, and the account stated by The
referee shows only n small difference
IN his favor. Upon the foregoing view
of the case, we see no error in the re-
cord. Affirmed.