STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 73

So, on the other hand, he who presents a claim for ameliorations,
must, in like manner, show, that it is sustainable on its own inde-
pendent, substantial, and fair principles of equity; as it stands
exhibited before the Court, it must appear in all respects unsullied
by wrong or deception; it must have no taint of fraud about it;—
if it has, it cannot be allowed.

Such claims as these for rents and profits, and for ameliorations,
may very often present themselves in a Court of equity in opposi-
tion to each other: and be set up by litigating parties, by way of
recouper, discount or set-off, the one against the other. But if, as
in the case of an executor, de son tort, a man shall not be per-
mitted to take advantage of his own wrong, even so far as to place
himself * in a situation to recoupe a just and equitable
claim, most certainly the law would not endure a wrong-doer 80
to oppose a fair claim, in any degree whatever, by one which had
originated, and was wholly founded in his own wrong. Hence it
is that a mala fide possessor can, in no case, nor under any circum-
stances, be allowed any thing for improve merits, either beyond or
even to the amount of the rents and profits. A different rule, as
has been justly observed, would place it in the power of the
wrongful possessor, to improve the right owner out of his estate.
Yet it is said, that where the sums are large, the peculiar circum-
stances of the case may influence the Court in directing the ac-
count to be taken from the filing of the bill only, and not from
the time of taking possession. Sugd. V. & P. 526.

Now how stands the case under consideration in reference to
this claim for improvements? The bill charges, that Rogers con-
veyed the property in question to Strike, for the purpose of avoid-
ing the payment of Rogers' creditors; Strike answers and denies
the charge, and avers, that the conveyances to him were absolute,
fair, and for a valuable consideration, and that he is the bona fide
purchaser and holder of the property. But the Court, by the de-
cree of May, 1822, has declared those conveyances to be null and
void, as against the complainants, and directed the property to be
sold for their benefit. Hence it clearly appears, that Strike now
stands before this Court convicted and condemned as a fraudulent
and mala fide purchaser and holder of the property. He, one of
the very contrivers, and a party to the fraud, claims an allowance
for improvements on the property so obtained and held. Such a
claim, it is believed, was never sanctioned by a Court of justice,
in any country or at any time. According to all law, and every
principle of equity, this claim for improvements of every descrip-
tion, must be totally and absolutely rejected.

Strike's claim for repairs and improvements has been thus dis-
posed of, on general principles. But it is alleged he has another
and special foundation for his claim for ameliorations and ad-
vances, under the concluding sentence of the decree of May, 1822.