mvrs u; cnxrnsu. r 43
of this court, 1885, denied _the‘title of the complainanti but thiscoiirt at that
time, in an ejectment suit on the law side of the court, gave judgment against
him, and confirmed plaintiffs title as owner of theundivided half of the prop-
erty. In its present form, thisis a suitfor partition and sale, with a prayer
that defendant account to complainant for the half of the rents and proiitsof .
the real estate during the period of her ownership. The bill as originally filed
in this case was of much wider scope, and contains a history of the efforts of
the defendant, Chapman, to secure title to the plaintiff’s undivided half of the
real estate by means of tax deeds, the foreclosure of mortgages, and various
other legal proceedings, which have enabled the defendant to retain the·pos·
session of the premises, and which litigation has subjected the complainant to
great expense in defending her title and enforcing her rights. The evidence
shows, in the master’s opinion, that the efforts of the defendant to defeat the
title of Mrs. Davis do not exhibit him in the light of a man who was seeking
in good faith to assert and maintain his legal rights, but rather as a litigant
who was doing everything in his power to vex and harass her by futile but
expensive lawsuits. It was said at the argument, for the defendant, that in
the present proceeding these considerations could have no proper weight in
the matter of accounting; that, .the judgment of this court in the ejectment
suit having settled and confirmed Mrs. Davis' title, there remained nothing to
be done but an examination of the accounts of the defendant, with a view of
ascertaining the amount of rents with which he should be chargeable, and the
deductions or credits to be made in his favor on account of necessary·and»
proper repairs and taxes. While this may be true, the master thinks that, in
view of the fact that the defendant has been in the wrongful possession of the
complainant’s property for so many years, he should be chargedwith thefull
value of the rentals coming to his co-tenant, rather than the amount he charges
himself with as having been actually received therefor. It appears in the
evidence that the defendant was the owner of some furniture and other
personal property whirh is used in the hotel. In making his. contracts with
tenants he wouldapportion the amount, allowing so much for the real estate,
in which the plaintiff had half interest, and so much forthe use ofthe furni—-
ture, of which he was the sole owner. In the master’s judgment, these lap-T
portionments were inequitable. The property is a three-story brick hotel and
basement, sixty-six feet front, on one of the principal business streetsof the
city of Warsaw. In addition, to the hotel, there is a stable adjoining, which
is a part of the premises in which the plaintiff has an undivided half interest.,
The defendant admits that from the stable he received in rents from lan ua1‘,Y·_
22, 1877, to March 1, 1888, some $1,250; that for the houseand furniturc,and_
for the good-will ofthe house, etc., he received from August 1, 1877, to Jan-
uary 29, 1885, the sum of $8,665; making a total of·$9,915, according to his
own showing. The defendant occupied the hotel himself from January 22;
_ 1877, to August 1, ,1877,-seven months. He was also in the possession -of’¤
the property from January 30, 1885L to J one 15, 1885,. the date at which the
judgment in ejectment was rendered in this court. Fromvthat time hehas.,
been in the exclusive occupancy of the premises. The description of the‘fn;··,
niture, as it appears in the depositions of Mr. George W'. Green, Mrs2Q Jennie
Reed, and Mr. and Mrs. Newberger, indicates that it was inferior in quality;`
and of no great value. The record shows that thedefendant himself bought
it at a chattel mortgage foreclosure sale in 1876 for $900, which was probably
all it was worth, ,Mr. Green, who rented the hotel and furniture from—Augnst
1, 1877, to Octoberl, 1881, for,$90 per,month,_aftor speaking of the;charaeter»
and condition of the furniture, says it was not worth over $500, and that then
fair rental value of it was from $30 to $35 a mouth, which certainly is¥a.·_fair
and liberal estimate. , Mrs. Jennie- Reed rented the hotel from October 3; 1881./·-·
toMay 3, 1882. She was to pay $1,000 for the hotel and,$500per yearforthe fun .