Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 260 View pdf image (33K) |
260 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.. were taken to said accounts by Richard Gambril, the tenant for life, the nature of which sufficiently appears from the fol- lowing opinion of the Chancellor, pronounced on the hearing of said exceptions.] THE CHANCELLOR: This case is submitted upon the exceptions of Richard Gam- bril to the Auditor's account C, accompanying his report of the 27th of January last. The case, in its circumstances, is not precisely like that of Bright vs. Boyd, 1 Story's Rep., 478, cited with approbation by the Court of Appeals in Jones' Admr. of Hawkins vs. Jones, 4 Gill, 87. But though the facts are dissimilar, the views ex- pressed by the Court in both cases apply with much force to the question raised by the first exception in this case. The principle settled by the Court of Appeals in Jones vs. Jones appears to be this: that though a mortgagee in posses- sion, or a tenant for life, may not in all cases be allowed for new improvements, yet a party, thinking himself absolutely entitled, who has expended considerable sums in repairs, and lasting improvements, will be allowed for such expenditures. The Court did not mean to decide against the right of the mortgagee, or tenant for life, to be allowed for reasonable and permanent improvement, as well as repairs; but that, con- ceding such to be the rule still, a party entertaining the bond fide impression that he was the true and absolute owner, and expending money under that impression in improvements, as well as repairs, would, when called upon to account, be per- mitted to recover the amount so expended, from the rents and profits. Thia, however, is not a case in which a mortgagee in posses- sion, or tenant for life, is called on to account; nor is it a case in which a party supposing himself to be entitled to the estate has made improvements and repairs, and now when he finds he was mistaken as to the title, and the property and its profits are demanded of him, asks to be allowed for the sums so ex- pended. It is a case in which the rights of the parties to the |
||||
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 260 View pdf image (33K) |
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.