Page:Economic History of Virginia Vol 1.djvu/567

 men, who had performed conscientiously the work required of them. It may have easily happened that a person, relying upon the accuracy of his plat of the lands assigned him, had proceeded to build a residence and lay off a garden and orchard at a spot which a subsequent more careful measurement disclosed was the property of his neighbor. Under these circumstances, the law reserved to the real owner of the soil the right to buy the different improvements erected by the person in possession, at a valuation decided upon by a jury, but if this valuation were at a higher figure than he was either willing or able to pay, then he was to content himself with receiving a sum from the occupant which only represented the value of the land itself. It is obvious that even this law, which was essentially just, might work the most serious inconvenience both to the owner and the holder of the soil in dispute. The owner might be unable to purchase the improvements established on the property by the holder, and yet find no real compensation for the loss of the land in the amount which the verdict of a jury might require the latter to pay him. On the other hand, it would frequently be no real compensation to the occupant if the expense he had incurred in establishing a home on the soil of which he had been dispossessed were refunded him. Moreover, the resurvey might have shown that the house in which he resided was on his own property, but that the garden and orchard belonged to his neighbor. This might