80 STRIKE'S CASE.

self in a situation to recoupe a just and equitable claim, most cer-
tainly the law would not endure a wrong-doer 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 circumstances, be
allowed any thing for improvements, 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 pos-
sessor, to improve the right owner out of his estate. Yet it is said,
that where the sums are large, the peculiar circumstances of the
case may influence the court in directing the account to be taken
from the filing of the bill only, and not from the time of taking
possession, (w)

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 decree
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 im-
provements 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 description, 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 advances,
under the concluding sentence of the decree of May, 1822. But,
that decree has declared the deeds from Rogers to Strike " null and
void as against the complainants;" it has retained them as a secu-
rity for nothing, and in no respect whatever. The several parts of
that decree must be made to harmonize one with another. Those
deeds which have been so totally annulled, as against the com-