Baton-Rouge gazette. [volume] (Baton-Rouge, La.) 1819-1856, 1848-05-20
Decision i'm the Gaines Case.


SUPREME CoURT OF Tue UNITED states.
TERN, lS47.
Charlcs Patterson, Apt, vs.. Edmund p.
Gaines and Elojrd C7arh Gaines. his rife.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
United States for Eastern District Of L0ui.
siana.
The appeal, having been heard by this
Court upoithe transcript ofthe record from
the Circuit Court of the United States for
the Eastern District o Louisiana, and upon
the arguments of counsel as well for the
appellant as for the appellees, this Court,
upon consideration Of the premises, doth
now here adjudge, order and decree, that
the decree Of the said Circuit Court ho and
the same is hereby reversed with costs,
| and that such other decree in the premises
be passed as is hereinafter ordered and
deCrefd.
And as this Court, %thereupon proceeding
to pass such decree in this cause as the
said Circuit Court ought to have passed.
doth now here adjudge order and decree,
that it be adiudgeI and declared, and is
hereby adiudged aud declared, upon the
evidence in this cause, that a lawful mar
riaae was contracted and solpmnized at
Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania,
between the same Daniel Clark, in the bill
and proceedings mentioned, and the same
Zuline or Zulime Carriere, in the bills aud
proceedings mentioned, an that Myra
Clark, now Myra Cla,k Gaines. and one OF
the complainants in this cause, iSthe law.
FIJI and only issue of the said marriage, and
was at the death of her said father, Daniel
Clark, his only legitimate child and heir at
law +; and as such, was exc usively invested
with character Of his forced heir, and en-.
titled to all the rights of such forced heir,
and this Court doth further adludge, order
and decree, that all the property described
and claimed by the defendant, Patterson,
in his answer aad supplemental answer,
and in the exhibits thereto annexed, ispart
and parcel Of the property composing the
succession of said Daniel Clark that the
defendants, Richard Ref and Beverly
Chew, at the time and times when, under
the pretended authority of the tesiamentary
Executors of the said Daniel Clark, and oil
the Attorneys in fact of the said Mary
Clark, in the bill and proceedings men.
toned, they caused, the property SO des.
cribed and claimed by the defendant, Pat
~terson, to be sci up and sold at public auc.
ton, in December, 1920, and when they
executed their act of sale, dated on the 18th
of February, 1921, to Gabriel Correiole'
for the two lots therein described (which
two lots constitute the same property des
cribed and claimed by the defendant, Pat
~tersos, as aforesaid) had no legal right Of
authority whatever, SO to sell and dispose
of the same that the said sale at auction
and the said act Of sale to CoFrejoles il
confirmation of The previous sale at auction
were wholly unauthorized and illegal, AM
are utterly null and void and that The de
fendant Patterson, at the time and time
when he purchased the property 50 des
cribed and claimed by him as aforesaid
part from the said Correioles the vende'
Of the defendants Relf& Chew, and th'
residue from Etienne Mennier, the yende,
of said Correioles himself, the vendee ofthr
same defendants was bound to take notic'
ofthe circumstances which rendered th,
+ actings and doings of the said defendant
in the premises illegal, null and void, an
that he ought to be deemed and held, an
hereby is deemed and held, TO have pur
chased the property in question, with ful
: notice that the said sale at auction unde
the pretended authority of the said defen
dants, and their said act Of sale to Core