Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/354

 342 FEDERAL REPORTER. �of assets ? Instead of avoiding thereby it would indefinitely create a multiplicity of suits. If this court took charge of this suit it would be compelled to bring in ail the parties and take custody of the assets in order that each crediter might receive his pro rata; for equality is equity. �The grave question as to jurisdietion remains with ref- erence to the citizenship of the parties. This subject bas been considered in several cases this term, and ail that need be added now is that the bill is fatally defective. �The demarrer is sustained. ���Geiswold V. Beagg and Wife. �{Circuit Court, B. Connectieut. February 21, 1881.) �1. BETTEBMBaiT ACT— CONN. GeN. ST. (ReV. 1873) p. 362, CONSTRUED. �Where a defendant in ejectment, in^ood faith, believing that he had an absolute title to the laud in question, bas made valuable improve- ments thereon, before the commencement of the action of ejectment, final judgment will net be rendered for the plaintifl in ejectment until he has paid to the defendant the value of his improvements, less the sum due by him for use and occupation. �Where good faith and belief actually existed, the deedsnot showing that an absolute title was not conveyed, and the defendant not being chargeable with lachea, he will be allowed the value of his improve- ments, notwithstanding that he held merely under a quitclaim deed. �Mere notice of adverse claim does not forbid the conclusion that such suLoequent improvements were made in good faith. �In Equity. �Shipman, D. J. This is a bill in equity, supplemental to an action of ejectment in favor of the present defendants against the present plaintiff, and founded upon the statute of this Btate commonly called the "Betterment Act." Gen. St. (Eev. 1875,) p. 362.* The plaintiff in the ejectment suit recovered �*" Final judgment shall not be rendered against any defendant in an action of ejectment, who or whose grantors or ancestors have in good faith, believing that he or they, as the case may be, had an absolute title to the land in question, made improvements thereon before the com- mencement of the action, until the court shall ascertain the present value ��� �