218 HANNAH K. CHASE'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

to Bryden, and no more, can be recovered during that term. After
that time the actual * value must be the criterion. For. as
232 it is said, if a wife be entitled to dower of land worth no
more than five dollars per acre, and the heir by his industry or by
building thereon makes it worth fifty dollars per acre; the widow
shall have her dower according to the improved value. So, on the
other hand, if the property be impaired, she can recover only
according to the reduced value. Co. Litt. 32, a. But the heir is
entitled to no allowance for meliorations and improvements. The
account of the rents and profits must be taken according to these
principles. Interest must be allowed on the rent from the time it
became due or was actually paid by the tenant, as it shall appear.
Tew v. Winterton, 1 Fes. Jun. 451; Baird v. Bland, 5 Nun. 492:
Davis v. Walsh, 2 H. & J. 344.

There is yet one other branch of this case to be disposed of. The
plaintiff prays, that the two-thirds of this property, not covered
by her claim, may be sequestered or sold to satisfy the amount
which may be awarded to her for rents and profits. I have been
referred to no authority which would warrant a sequestration or
sale as prayed: nor do I know, that there is any such authority to
be found. Perhaps the power to sequester might have been thought
to rest upon principles similar to those on which I founded fhe
order appointing a receiver. The cases are, however, widely differ-
ent. The sole object of appointing a receiver is to take care of
the subject about which the parties are contending, and to pre-
vent it from being wasted or lost. Such an appointment involves
a decision upon no right; and cannot affect any point in contro-
versy. But a sequestration, or sale, makes a temporary or a total
disposition of the property, which can be done in no instance where
the matter is not put in issue by the nature of the case, and a seques-
tration or sale is not expressly authorized. From the nature of the
decree, here called for, the title of the defendants and their enjoy-
ment of the two-thirds must be left undisturbed. It is their prop-
erty. But, like any other property belonging to them, it will be
subject to seizure, and sale under a fieri facias upon a decree com-
manding them to pay the plaintiff a specified sum of money, should
they fail to comply. These prayers of the plaintiff must, there-
fore, be rejected.

There may be some difficulty in assigning the plaintiff dower in
this property, owing to its peculiar nature. It is represented to
be a large and valuable edifice, chiefly or altogether occupied as a
tavern. And it may turn out, upon inquiry, that it is incapable of
being advantageously occupied in any other way; or perhaps of
being divided at all. A rent may be given for equality of parti-
tion or in lieu of dower; which in its nature will be distrainable of
common right. Co. Litt. 144, 169; Turney v. Sturges, Dyer, 91;
Dace v. Gorges, 2 Sim. & Stu. 454; Com. Dig. tit. Annuity, (A. 3;)