DUNLOP
v.
HEPBURN, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this equity case involving disputed property rights, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree dismissing a claim for rents and profits from land, holding that defendants were accountable only for rents and profits they actually received, not for the reasonable value of rents that could have been earned during the period in question.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Washington,
delivered the opinion the court. By the decree -of this courf made in this cause at February term, I8lfi, the defendants were or-, dered “to make up,'state, and. settle,.before a comrnissioner or commissioners to be appointed by. the circuit court'of the district of Columbia for the county of Al~. exandria, an account of the r^nts and profits of . the tract of land referred to in the proceedings, since the 27th day of March, 1809, and that they -pay over the same to the complainants, John Dunlop & Co., or tor their lavjful agent*6r attorney.” The commissioners appointed by the' circuit court to execute this part of the decree of this court made a report, in which they state, “that it did not appear to them that the said William Hepburn arid John Dundas, or the legal representatives of the said Dundas, ever, received any rents or profits of the land from the 27th day of March, 1809, until the date of.the report;.but that the reasonable rents and profits of the said land in ' its untenantable situation the said 27th day of March, 180,9, to the 27th day of March, 1816, with due care would be equal to' 2077 60 dollars.”
The cause coming on to be heard in the eourt below on this report, and that court being of opinion that under the decree of this court, the defendants were only to be. accountable for the rents and profits actually received, itwás decreed that the frill, so-far. Us it seeks a recovery of .rents and profits, should be dismissed, from which decree an appeal was prayed to this court,
I am instructed by the" court to say, that the decree ' of the circuit js in strict cdhformity with the decree and mandate of this court, and is therefore to be affirmed..
Decree affirmed*