The value of improvements made by one bona fide in possession under a claim of right may be set off against a claim for mesne profits.
(Orig. Code 1863, § 2847; Code 1868, § 2855; Code 1873, § 2906; Code 1882, § 2906; Civil Code 1895, § 3753; Civil Code 1910, § 4347; Code 1933, § 20-1308.)
Cross references.- Setoff of improvements by one in bona fide possession, § 44-11-9.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Tenant may set off value of improvements made by tenant against mesne profits.
- Tenant in ejectment may prove increased value of premises resulting from improvements made thereon by the tenant and set off value thereof in action for mesne profits. Roe v. Doe, 39 Ga. 328 (1869).
Defendant must either have erected improvements or show connection with one who did.
- To take credit for improvements, requisite foundation must be laid in evidence of increased value, and where defendant neither erected improvements nor connected oneself by evidence with those who did, it was not error for jury to refuse to reduce mesne profits. Jenkins v. Means, 59 Ga. 55 (1877).
Setoff of improvements made by predecessor in title by one holding warranty deed is allowed.
- Law does not confine setoff to improvements made by defendant in ejectment. If defendant is bona fide in possession under claim of right with a warranty from previous possessor who made improvements, the defendant may set off the value of those improvements. Roe v. Doe, 47 Ga. 540 (1873).
Defendant in ejectment may set off value of improvements made by predecessor in title under whom the defendant holds warranty deed to extent such predecessor could have done. Dean v. Feely, 69 Ga. 804 (1883).
Improvements cannot be set off against mesne profits unless the improvements have increased rental value of premises. Hunt v. Pond, 67 Ga. 578 (1881).
One bona fide in possession is entitled to set off full value of improvements.
- When premises are held bona fide under independent and adversary claims of title, party making improvements is entitled to have the full value of the improvements allowed the party. Dean v. Feely, 69 Ga. 804 (1883).
Extent of setoff allowed for improvements made by tenant by sufferance.
- When improvements of a permanent character are made in good faith by one who has no claim of right to possession, but is a tenant by sufferance, the value of such improvements may be allowed to extent of rent found to be due for use of land, but no further. Dean v. Feely, 69 Ga. 804 (1883).
Fence erected by trespasser for purpose of dispossessing plaintiff cannot be set off in action for mesne profits, since it is not an improvement, but rather an obstruction. Hunt v. Pond, 67 Ga. 578 (1881).
Trespassers are not entitled to benefit of improvements. Hunt v. Pond, 67 Ga. 578 (1881).
Set off of improvements in action for mesne profits as between tenants in common.
- As between tenants in common, when one has held out the other, believing to be the sole owner, and, pending such exclusion, one has made permanent improvements, the cotenant, unless the cotenant resorts to equity, cannot be compelled to contribute anything for the cost or value of the improvements, beyond such portion of rents as may be chargeable to party erecting the improvements. Bazemore v. Davis, 55 Ga. 504 (1875).
Plaintiff in ejectment cannot claim enhanced rents from defendant by reason of improvements made by defendant. Dean v. Feely, 69 Ga. 804 (1883).
Improvements by life tenant not charge upon property when passed to remainderman.
- When tenant for life makes valuable improvements upon land during tenant's occupancy, these improvements are not a charge upon property when it comes to remainderman. Dean v. Feely, 69 Ga. 804 (1883).
Cited in McPhee v. Guthrie & Co., 51 Ga. 83 (1874); National Sur. Corp. v. Algernon Blair, Inc., 114 Ga. App. 30, 150 S.E.2d 256 (1966).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 25 Am. Jur. 2d, Ejectment, § 54. 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Improvements, §§ 4 et seq., 28, 32, 33.
C.J.S.- 42 C.J.S., Improvements, §§ 17 et seq.