Jane M. Ott v. James M. Grice, et. al., 4 Dev. 477

DaNiei, Judge. After stating the evidence and charge as above, proceeded: — The law authorises the reversioner to maintain an action on the case, and to recover damages for an injury done, if the injury was sufficient to prejudice his interest in the reversionary estate, or for any act injurious to the reversion, (1 Chit. Plead. 51 142.) The charge “ that if there had been a permanent injury to the freehold,” explained by saying “an injury which rendered it less valuable to the owner of the freehold, the plaintiff might recover,” was a charge not in the main erroneous.

But when considered in reference to the testimony before the jury, and the points contested by the parties, we think it erroneous as tending to mislead the jury. The plaintiff was entitled to recover if her .reversionary interest liad sustained any injury. If the evidence given on the trial was true, even that evidence only which the witness, for the defendants gave, still the plaintiff was in law entitled to recover.

We think that the plaintiff, (the reversioner,) had a right to have the house and lot of land, in such a plight and condition as she thought proper or fit to put them in.herself, or caused to. b.e put 01. p]ace(i ]u by others, provided that neither the public ri01. (dher persons were injured thereby.

And we think that it is no answer to an action, brought by a rever-sioner for an injury to the inheritance,for the defendant to say, “to be sure I pulled down your house, I cut down your grove, or I destroyed your forest of timber, but your lands will rent for as much or more now, than they did before the act was done.” If a tenantable house containing a tenant rendering rent, is torn down or dilapidated, so as to render it untenantable, this act, in law, is such an injury to the reversionary estate, as to enable the owner thereof to maintain an action on the case, to recover damages.

Wo think the Judge should have told thejury, that if they believed the evidence, then the plaintiff was, in law, entitled to recover some damages, and that the only thing for them thereafter to do, would be to assess the amount. Upon the whole case, we think the judgment must be reversed, and anew trial granted. Per Curiam. — Judgment Reversed,