SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

Boyd deArosemena with the knowledge and consent of the owner of the premises erected a house and outhouses on the portion of the premises sought to be recovered in this action. Thereafter and n January, 1909, by an instrument in writing, duly executed, Mrs. Boyd de Arosemena sold and conveyed the said house and outhouses to the appellants, defendants in the court below, the purchase price being the sum of $2,500, Panamanian silver.
In their answer the defendants alleged among other allegations that they had purchased and erected on the property in good faith certain improvements, viz, the buildings aforesaid and fences and had cleared land, planted crops, etc. The answer, therefore, prayed that in the event that title to the land should be adjudged to be in the plaintiff, the plaintiff be required to reimburse the defendants for the cost of such purchase and improvements before being let into possession of the said premises.
After trial duly had in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit the trial court found title to the premises to be in the plaintiff and that defendants were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $40, United States currency, for rent accrued since January 1, 1912, at which date the plaintiff notified the defendants that they must pay rent. The trial court further found that since their purchase of the buildings from Mrs. Boyd de Arosemena the defendants had made improv ments on the premises at an expenditure of $3,000, Panamanian silver, for which amount they were entitled to be reimbursed by the plaintiff before the latter could recover possession ol the premises. The court refused to find that the defendants were entitled to any reimbursement from the plaintiff for the buildings purchased from Mrs Boyd de Arosemena, holding that the defendants must look to the last-named person for such reimbursement under the deed executed by her aid delivered to them.
Judgment was entered in accordance with the findings of the trial court. From such judgment the defendants appeal to this court.
The appeal, therefore, involves mainly a single question of law. Mrs. Boyd de Arosemena erected the buildings with the consent of the owner of the land. The defendants bought the buildings from Mrs. Boyd de Arosemena in good faith. The evidence so shows and the trial court so found. The defendants made improvements in good faith with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The trial court so found. The plaintiff, if put into possession of the premises, will come into possession not only of the

208