Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/359

 GBISWOIiD V. BRAOa. 347 �inconsistent with his good faith that some person had at some time asserted a claim upon his property. The notice of claim may be a cireumstance ail-important, and it may be of trifiing consequence. �In this case notice was given in January, 1877, of attack upon ail the titles of land in a part of a village. The alleged def ect was treated as of no consequence by competent lawyers who were consulted or who professed to give an opinion. The claim was virtually declared to be valueless by near relatives of the claimant. In January, 1878, her attomey offered to give a complete title to ail the owners for $1,400, and in the succeeding month he made a like offer for |500. In March, 1878, this offer was repeated, with threat of immediate suit in case of non-acceptance, but no suit had been commencedwhen the plaintiff rebuilt in the fall and winter of 1878-9. Under these circumstances the plaintiff acted not only in good faith towards the claimant, but he had some reason to believe that flhe was acting in bad faith towards him. �The mere notice of adverse claim is not considered in other states which have statutes of similar general character to for- bid the conclusion that subsequent improvements were made in good faith. Harrison v. Castner, 11 Ohio St. 347; WeUs V. RUey, 2 Dillon, 569. �By agreement of the parties, the wheel and shaft connected therewith, and main Une of shafting, and ail machinery, fixed and movable, are excluded from the computation of the value of improvements, and the said machinery, fixed and movable, shafting, shaft, and wheel, are agreed to belong to said Gris- wold, and not to pass to said Bragg and wife by virtue of any judgment in the ejectment suit. �The present value of the improvements upon said land thus made by the plaintiff, excluding the value of the ma- chinery by virtue of the foregoing stipulation, I find to be $6,100; one-fourth of which is $1,525. The amount due to the defendants by the plaintiff for the use and occupation of one undivided fourth of the premises for two years, one and one-half months, was found by the jury to be $112, or at the rate of $4.40 per month. ��� �