76 STRIKE'S CASE.

have been suffered to lie unnoticed among those rarely used regu-
lations, which are seldom examined but by the curious. In a
neighbouring 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 man, the title of which was in another.(l) Yet upon
a recent occasion, when a judicial decision was called for upon the
occupying claimants law of Kentucky , involving matters which in
a greater or less degree 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. (m)

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 in-
nocent, appears to have been considered as altogether irresistible.
In all cases in which the court is called on to apply this rule, it is

title be made to the complainant as already mentioned; and if no such title shall be
made, then the judgment at law, and injunction bond to stand as security for the
interest of the money only.

The defendants in this cause having declared in court, that they applied to the
last assembly for an act to confirm the deed, mentioned in the former decretal order
made in this cause, but could not obtain such act; and that the heir at law is a minor,
and will not attain his full age in several years, so that they have no means in their
power to procure such a conveyance as is mentioned in the said order; therefore
they pray his excellency the chancellor's further order therein.

The chancellor having, heard council on both sides, and taking the same into his
consideration, doth think fit to order, that the injunction be made perpetual in this
cause, in case the complainant shall pay the interest for the purchase money from the
date of his bond, mentioned in the proceedings, and deliver up the possession of the
land to the defendants, which are to be complied with by the last day of October
next, with liberty to the complainant to finish his crop of all kinds on the said land,
and remove his said crop and cattle therefrom; or that the injunction be dissolved.
And further, it is ordered, that a reasonable allowance be made to the complainant,
by the 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 complainant on the said land,
beyond what might have been proper in the use and working thereof, by the com-
plainant, during the time of his possession thereof. — Chane. Proc. Lib. I.R. No. 2,

fol. 750.

(l) 1 Hen, Virg. Stat. 260, 349, 443; 2 Hen. Virg.Stat. 96.— (m) Green v. Biddle,
8 Wheat. I, and Appendix, 1.