NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND. 583

the order of the 5th of December, 1826, with interest on the
amount of rents and profits charged to each defendant from the
end of each year when they were received; and the whole appears
to be well sustained in point of fact by the proofs, in the manner
he has stated; therefore overruling all the exceptions to his re-
port, it must be confirmed; subject, however, as regards the de-
fendant Edward Hagthrop, to a deduction for that amount of
rents and * profits of the property held by him from the
time it was placed in the hands of the receiver, until the 601
17th of February, 1831, up to which day the auditor's statements
have been made.

It appears to have been the practice in many cases in this Court,
where the object of the suit was to recover certain specified prop-
erty, together with its rents and profits during the time of its un-
just detention, to order an account of the rents and profits to be
taken before the property itself was ordered to be delivered up.
The inevitable consequence of such a course of proceeding is,
that after the account has been so taken, and the property has
been delivered, there will remain a claim for au unascertained
amount of rents aud profits which have accrued between the time
up to which the account had been taken, aud the delivery of pos-
session, to be adjusted and recovered by a subsequent proceeding.
Crapster v. Griffith, 6 H. & J. 144; 8. C. 2 Bland, 5.

Observing the impropriety and inconvenience of this practice, I
shall follow it no further. In cases of this kind a final decree
should be passed directing the specific property to be delivered
up; followed by a clause directing an account of the rents aud
profits to be taken up to the time of such delivery. By such a
decree the controversy would be so far terminated; and the prop-
erty itself being thus transferred to its true owner, there could be
no occasion to call for the appointment of a receiver, as in this in-
stance, to preserve it from any loss or injury to which it might be
exposed while remaining in the hands of the defendant. And an
exact period being thus fixed up to which the account may be
brought by such a final determination in favor of the plaintiff's
title, his rights, consequent upon that determination may be also
finally decided, aud the whole case closed, without going again to
the auditor for a further account. Kipp v. Hanna, 2 Bland, 36.

It will be necessary, however, again to send this case to the au-
ditor for the purpose of stating a final account upon the same
principles, and in continuation of that last stated by him, shewing
the amount of rents and profits with which each deleudant is
chargeable from that time to the time when the property shall
have been delivered to the plaintiff. Aud for this purpose, the
receiver in whose hands the property held by the defendant Ed-
ward Hagthorp has been placed, must also be ordered to make a