GBI8W0LD V. BBAOa. 345 �The plaintiff's factory was burned on October 15, 1878. He eommenced rebuilding on November 1, 1878, The new building was completed about January 1, 1879. Before re- building he asked the same counsel whether there oould be any doubt as to the validity of his title, and received answer that Mrs; Bragg had no valid claim. �On January 26, 1878, Mr. Ely offered to give a diacharge from ail the Dudley ohildren to ail the owners for $1,400. This offer was declined, and on February 21, 1878, Mr. Ely made a like offer of discharge for $500. On March 2, 1878, Mr. Bragg repeated this proposition, acoompanied with the assurance that if it was not accepted suit would be eommenced immediately. Suit was eommenced on April 10, 1879. �Between December 6, 1850, and February 16, 1865, the owners of this property made repairs and some slight im- provements thereon, but the improvements are so small that no account is made of them (except the portion of the perma- nent improvements upon the dam which may have been made by Turner, Day & Co.) until af ter the repurchase by the plain- tiff in 1865. Since then the dam has been substantially re- built, additional buildings and a store erected, walls and a fence built, trees set out, and the brook straightened. After the fire a new building and foundation were built. �The testimony leaves no room for doubt that up to the date of the suit the plaintiff continuously believed that he was the absolute owner of said property from and after February 15, 1865, and that he had a perfect title thereto in fee simple, and that the claim of the defendants was without foundation. Neither is there any doubt that the plaintiff and his grantors made ail lueir improvements upon said property, before the commencement of the action at law, in the like belief of abso- lute title, and in perfect good faith, in fact, both with them- selves and towards any known or unknown claimants. These improvements are valuable, and have a present value in the enhancement of the price of said property. �The averments of the bill are found to be true, except as +0 the value of the betterments, and except as to the averment that a joiner's shop constituted one of the improvements. ��� �
