HANNAH K. CHASE'S CASE.

value must be the criterion. For, as 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, (o) 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, (p)

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 the
order appointing a receiver. The cases are, however, widely dif-
ferent. The sole object of appointing a receiver is to take care of
the subject about which the parties are contending, and to prevent
it from being wasted or lost. Such an appointment involves a
decision upon no right; and cannot affect any point in controversy.
But a sequestration, or sale, makes a temporary or a total disposi-
tion 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 pro-
perty. But, like any other property belonging to them, it will be
subject to seizure, and sale under & 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

(o) Co. Litt 32, a.—(p) Tew v. Winterton, 1 Ves. jun. 451; Baird v. Bland,
5 Mun. 492; Davis v. Walsh, 2 H. & J. 844.