Lawrence v. RectorLawrence v. Rector
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Brewer
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is thе second time this case has béen to this court. It came first оn demurrer to the bill, and the-decision is reported in 111 U. S. 276. The demurrеr, which had been sustained in the Circuit Court, was overruled by this, and the case remanded with instructions to permit answer and proceed to’ proof. Obediently thereto answer was filed in thе Circuit Court, and the case proceeded to prоof and hearing. The history of the “ Hot Springs ” litigation, of which this is but a fragment, has been so often referred to in the opinions of this court, particularly in the case in 111 U. S. supra, that referеnce thereto now is superfluous; and in reference tо the principal matter in controversy here, the title to the lots, it is enough to say that every material fact alleged in the bill was proved, and that nothing was developed in аnswer’ or testimony to disturb the conclusions of law heretofоre reached by *140 this court. The matter of title was establishеd by the decree of the Circuit Court in accordance with the views of the law entertained and announced by this court, and there is nothing in the testimony to” withdraw the case from the scope of that conclusion.
The Circuit Court entered a decree for title — also directed an accоunting. That accounting, as finally settled, credited the defendant with the amount of taxes and assessments paid by .him — the amount оf purchase-money paid to the United States for the lots and the expenses incurred in obtaining the patent — and the amount due for improvements, on the basis of the leasе which established the rights of the parties, and charged him with the money received on certificates from the governmеnt for buildings condemned and destroyed, and also the rental value of the premises from the time of the award of the сommissioners to the date of the decree.’ “We ‘are of opinion that the rental value ought not to have been charged; that, under the peculiar circumstancеs of this case, having reference to the doubt that must havе arisen as to the matter of title, to the prima facie effect of the award given by the commissioners, and to the evident good faith of all the parties in reference thereto,’ the true measure of liability is not the rental value, but the actual rеceipts. This account, as stated by the Circuit Court, was as follows:
To rent of premises . . ....... . . . $9,541 66
To amount due on certificates for condemnеd buildings ....’............10,787 86
$20,279 52-
By amount of taxes and assessments paid, $2,306 98
. By amount purchase-money paid for lots, 1,528 00
By amount expenses in getting patent . 112 35
By amount for improvements as per covenant........... 8,666 67’
$12,614 00 $12,614 00
Balance due Hector $7,665 52
*141 This aсcount should be modified so as to charge defendant with аmount received on certificates for condemnеd buildings, $10,737.86, and other amounts actually received from the property, $5659.07; total $16,396.93. From which, deducting the credits allowed, therе remains- a balance of $3782.93.
The decree of the Circuit Court will therefore be modified and the case
Remandеd with instructions to enter a final decree, as heretofore, establishing the title of the complainant and decreeing to him possession, and adjudging that he recover of the defendants the sum of $3782.93, with interest from the 11th day of November, 1886, the time of the final decree.