Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/185

 Sonata Cover or Pmyjlwinii 179 them, it mult be owing to fome impediment in law or equity. 179:. I know of no Each impediment 5 they have a right to receive th1s*·’V# money from the time their title accrued, unlefs the Teiiator had no notice of their title; or was in poll`eHion under a title, or fuch a title as he. was mfaku in; or there has been a default or luclm in the plaintiffs, in not allerting there title [ooner. Mr. Ducbe had all the deeds, and he of courfe knew the title of Mrs. Haldane; but he might pollibly have apprehended, that the dev]? of his wife wasgoodinlaw tohimfelf : Ifay, he poili- bly was under this mylate for a time; but from his letter of the 12th February, 1782, it a ars, that he then knew his own ti· tletobe bad, and thatof E: plaintiis to be good. It further appeared to the jury, that Mr. Ducbe not only concealed the title of the plaintiffs from them, but my-epi-;/`ented his own. I-`rom rbi: time, he was not a bme yidei pyéjcr, and was accountable to the plaintifs for the rents, whatever might have been the cafe prior to this time. A man cannot be an honeii, faithful tpof· feifor of what belongs toothers; nothing but ignoranceof the iaéts and eircumliances, relating to his own and his hdverl'ary's titles, mn excufe him in fora can/`cientix. 'l`his cannot be pretended here. _ Thus it wasfummed upto the ]u, on the trial, and they foundfor the plaintiffi accordingly, ihat is, the amount of the rents from February, 1782, ’tillMarcb 2, 1796, whichl think was right, and agreeable to equity and the truth of the cafe. If I erred in the charge to the jury, it was in limiting them to. February, 1 782, and not going back to june, 1 779, the time when Mrs. Haldane’: title accrued. From diis circumiiance, the de- fendants retain the rents and profits of an eftate, for upwards _ of two years and an half, to which their Teliator had neither a legal nor equitable title. The oaks cited forthe plaintifs, par- ticularly, Baron': Abr. 18. Prec. in Cbauc. 517, and 2 WH}., 644. fupport this opinion. ` The rule to {hew caufe, why a new trial lhoulri not be grant-. ed, mult be difcharged. September Term, I 79 2»— . Straw guegpu Waauce. 'I`HlS caufe was fet down for trial; but was afterwards continued by the plaintiili The defendant’s attorney, prayed a rule might be granted for fecurity for coils, the platipti · Z2 ' `

�