Pomeroy v. . Lambeth

36 N.C. 65

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 5, 1840
• Status: Published

Opinion

Daniel, Judge,

after stating the pleadings as above;.proceeded as follows: The evidence proves, that the land has been increased in value by the improvements placed on them by Lovick Lambeth. The land is now worth from $1,250 to $1,500. But the plaintiffs have failed to-prove that there was any gift, by parole or otherwise, by Joseph to Lovick; or that Joseph ever encouraged or advised Lovick to make the improvements. Lovick says in his answer, that his bankruptcy arose from losses at sea. There is no charge in the bill, that the improvements were made out of the funds of Lovick, with a view to defraud his creditors; or were subsequent to the plaintiff’s debt. If Joseph should bring his action of ejectment, there is nothing in the pleadings or evidence, to raise an equity in behalf of Lovick, to have compensation. for these improvements. There was no gift of the land, or request by Joseph to improve; nor did Lovick make the improvements under any mistake, inadvertence or ignorance of his title. We admit, that when a person stands by and induces another to lay out money upon his property, der a supposition that he has a right, he will be bound by the facts as he causes them to be understood; The East India Co. v. Vincent, 3 T. R. 462 —Stiles v. Cowper, 3 Atk. 692 —Jackson v. Cator, 5 Ves. 688. But there is no relief upon general equity, from expenditure by the tenant under the, observation of the landlord, but not under any specific engagement or arrangement. Pilling v. Armitage, 12 Ves. 84. Lovick Lambeth was under no mistake, with regard to the nature of his title; he was but a tenant at will, or a tenant from year to year, making improvements, and laying out money upon an estate in which he had no permanent interest. He may be guilty of great impudence, but he has no equity against the landlord for such improvements:, and as he has none, we are unable to see that his creditors have any.

The bill must be dismissed with costs.

Per. Curiam. Bill dismissed.