70 STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

which are seldom examined but by the cdrious. In a neighboring
State, so far back as the year 1643, it seems to have been deemed
expedient to place upon its statute book, all the rules in relation
to compensation for improvement, made upon the land by one manr
the title of which was in another. 1 Hen. Fir//. Stat. 260, 349, 443;
2 Hen, Virg. Stat. 96. Yet upon a recent occasion, when a judicial
decision was called for upon the occupying claimants law of Ken-
tucky, involving matters which in a greater or less decree attracted
the. attention of the whole Union, it was found that those legislative
provisions had disappeared from the revised statute book of that
State, and it required some care to ascertain distinctly what was
then its law upon the subject. Green v. Jiiddle, 8 Wheat. 1, and
Appendix 1.

It seems to be a sound and a very generally admitted principle
of justice, that no man shall be allowed to enrich himself from the
losses of another; or, as it is expressed in the Roman law, nemo
debet locupletari aliena jactura. The moral force of this rule, in all
cases to which it applies, and as between parties alike fair and
innocent, appears to have been considered as altogether irresisti-
ble. In all cases in which the Court is called on to apply this rule,
it is * essential that it should most clearly and distinctly
77 appear, that he who claims an allowance for his losses, in
the shape of compensation for improvements, should be entirely
absolutely free from all blame; because equity never interferes in
favor of a wrong-doer. In cases where a bona fide possessor of
of property, one wrho is ignorant of all the facts and circumstances
relating to his adversary's title, under a confident apprehension
and belief, that he was himself the true owner, proceeds to make
improvements, and increase the value of the subject so held, it
seems to have been almost universally admitted, that an allow-
ance for such increased value should be made, at least to the ex-
tent of the rents and profits. According to the Roman law, such
a claim for improvements may be extended to their full value
beyond the amount of the rents and as against the improved sub-
ject itself. Dormer v. Fortescue, 3 Atk. 334; Pow Mort. by Coven.
313, n. o.; Kames' Pri. Eq. b. 1, p. 1, s. 3: b. 3 c. 1; Just. Inst. 1, 2,
tit. 1, ,s. 29, and notes; Sug. V. & P. 525; Savage v. Taylor, Fors.
234; Deane v. Izard, 1 Vern. 159; Shine v. Gough, 1 Butt. & P.
444; Haadcantle v. Skafto, 1 Anstr. 185; Attorney-General v. Baliol
Coll. 9 Mod. 411; Ifebb v. Rorfce, 2 Scho. & Left: (>76. And so>

defendants, for any improvements which the complainant has made on the
said land, and which may be useful and beneficial to any person who may,
or shall hereafter have possession thereof. And also, that the complainant
pay and satisfy to the defendants for any waste committed by the complain-
ant on the said land, beyond what might have been proper in the use and
working thereof, by the complainant, during the time of his possession,
thereof.— Chan. Proc. Lib. I. R. No. 2, fol. 750.