In Ormond v. Martin, 37 Ala. 606, and Jones et al. v. Johnson et al. 28 Ark. 211, it is held that the claim for improvements cannot be set off against the body of the estate, but only against a demand for rents.
Summary of this case from Moore v. ThorpMarch, 1928.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
Present — Dowling, P.J., Merrell, Finch, McAvoy and Proskauer, JJ.
In Ormond v. Martin, 37 Ala. 606, and Jones et al. v. Johnson et al. 28 Ark. 211, it is held that the claim for improvements cannot be set off against the body of the estate, but only against a demand for rents.
Summary of this case from Moore v. ThorpFull title:M. JAMES ORMOND, Respondent, v. MARTIN A. TOWLE, Appellant
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Date published: Mar 1, 1928
Sellers v. Friedman, 100 Ala. 499, 14 So. 277; Richards v. Richards, 98 Ala. 599, 12 So. 817; Wolffe v. Loeb,…
Robinson v. ShearerAs to the nature of the possession taken by the purchaser thereunder, no distinction is made between…