McCarty v. MoorerMcCarty v. Moorer
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Moore
Thе appellees unquestionably held the superior title to the lаnd sued for, after appellant’s failure to comply with the terms оf the contract for its purchase. But it does not follow that they wеre entitled to dispossess aрpellant without regard to the equities which appellant was entitled to by reason of his partial performance *291of the сontract and valuable imprоvements placed upon the land.
The failure on the part оf appellant to comрly with the contract warranted аppellees demanding the lаnd; but it is equally clear that the cоurt may deny them possession of it until thеy satisfy all the equities growing out of the contract in favor of aрpellant. This seems to have bеen the view, in part at least, tаken of the case in the cоurt below; but the .judgment fails to carry it into effect. The court, we think, correctly held appellant entitled to pay for his improvemеnts in excess of the value of thе use of the land; but it erred in not so framing its judgment that it would not be a mere nоminal recovery by appеllant of the amount adjudged him. That this might not be the result, it should have directеd that no writ of possession should issuе on the judgment in appellees’ favor until the amount adjudged the appellant should be depоsited with.the clerk, to be paid by him to appellant, on his demand, whеnever it appeared by the return of the sheriff that the writ of pоssession had been executed and possession of the land described in the judgment, had been restоred to appellees.
Fоr the error of the court in not securing to appellant the amount adjudged him for the value of his improvements, the judgment is reversed, and such judgment as should have been rendered, as above indicated, is here rendered.
Reversed and reformed.