44 FEDERAL imrorvrmz.
niture. At that time she says that Chapman only wanted to sell the entire fur-
niture for $600 or $700. He finally asked her if she would give $500 for it. She
says she told him she would give $300 a year for it, ,but she does not think
it worth over $50 a year rental. Mr. and Mrs. Newberger rented the house
from' May 3, 1882, to January 30, 1885. They were to pay $1.000 per year
and $500 for thefurniture. Mr. Newberger says that Chapman would not
rent the hotel unless he agreed to take the furniture. He also says that the
fair cash value of the furniture at that time would not exceed $250. and that $50
a year would be full rental value for it. Mrs. Newbergcr says the furniture
was not worth over $300. The effect of this evidence is to show that in deal-
ing with this propertyMr. Chapman was taking much better care of his inter-
ests in what belonged to him exclusively than he was of the joint property
which was owned by himself and the plaintid. In view of all the facts, I End
~ and report that- the defendant should be charged with the rental value of the
hotel proper from January 27, 1877, to April 1, 1888, a period of eleven years,
_ two months,and eight days. At the rate of $75 per month. this would amount
to $10,070. I report and lind that he should be disallowed for his claim for
repairsput upon the property priorto 1877, which repairs amountedto the
sum of $2,595. Taking this from the total repairs proved by him, which is
$5,223.67, would leave a balance of repairs, for which he is entitled to acredit,
of $2,628.67. In addition to this, the defendant Chapman paid taxes from
time to time amounting to $1,175.37. This, added to the repairs for which he
should be allowed, makes-the total of credits in his favor, $3,804.04. Sub-
tracting this amount from the $10,070 rentals, leaves a balance of rent for the
hotel property, $6,265.96. He should account to the complainant for one-half
of this, which is $3,132.98. In addition to the rentals from the hotel, Col.
_Chapman received $1,250 rent for the stable. Half of this amount, $625,
should be added to the half of the hotel rentals, which makes the amount due
Mrs. Davis on an accounting, allowing Col. Chapman for repairs and taxes as
indicated above, the sum of $3,757.98. In this computation no account has
been taken of interest either way. The master has preferred to take the short
method of allowing the interest on repairs to odset interest on rents, without
t attempting to arrive at the exact figures by making monthly or annual rests.
I report and find that out of the defendant’s share of the proceeds of the sale ’
of _the real estatethe complainant be allowed the sum of $3,757.98. " -
Both parties have excepted to the amount of this allowance, and to the
calculations by which it was reached. The plaintiff demands rents from
January 22, 1877, the date of her deed; and insists that the demands
of the defendant for improvements and repairs, and for taxes paid be-
fore that date, are merged and extinguished in his title as sole owner of
the entire property, acquired November 15, 1876, (or, if the doctrine of
relation to the date of purchase be applied, November 15, 1875;) and
that for the time since that date he should be allowed nothing, because
wrongfully and in bad faith he had denied her rights in the property,
had excluded her from possession, and had subjected her to the expense
of vexatious litigation.
L J`. M Van Elect and Hill Jo Lamb, for complainant.
:N0 casein the books, either at law or in equity, holds that a willful and
perverse wrong·doer can recover or be allowed anything for improvements or
any apportionment whatever for rents incurred by way of improvements.
The counsel will cite none. Many cases can be found holding that where one
tenant in commomsupposing that he owned the whole, without notice of ad- ‘
verse claims, hasbeen allowed in equity a deduction for the rents occasioned