The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Mary Holt Richardson, mother of D, contracted with P for the construction by it of the house upon the lots in question, giving P a warranty that she, Mary Holt Richardson, owned the land, in reliance upon which warranty P, in good faith, constructed the house upon the land, improving its value by $3,300. D, who was and is the owner of the land, claimed ownership thereof and of the house after the construction was complete. P offered to remove the building and restore the lots to their original condition, but D refused. D has assumed dominion over the house and has rented it to a tenant from whom she has collected rent. P sued D for unjust enrichment. P sued D for unjust enrichment. P sought to recover $3300 from D or, in the alternative, that the court restrain D from interfering with the removal of the house. D claimed that P did not act in good faith and denies that she knew of the construction while it was in progress, alleging that she was then residing in and employed in New York. D denied she has been unjustly enriched, contending that the construction of the house damaged the lots in value, for which damage she counterclaims. D got the verdict with nothing on her counterclaim, and P appealed.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.