The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-04-01
The Decision In the Celebrated Case OF MRS
General GalneS

Term. ls47 Charles Patterson, appellant Edmund
A. Gsne, and Ms Csk G . s,s ss STAT. for
the Eastern District OF Louisiana
Mr. Justice Wayne delivered the opinion OF the court
OF the OF Gaines Rslf and Chew, In 3 How 69
This the fourth time that the cause has been before
this court
It's decision in each instance hitherto. has been in
favor OF the compainsnts
The third time It was brought here upon points up
which the Judges in the Circuit Court were divided
in their opinions They arose upon the argument Of
dernurrers, FLED by several of the defendants.
1t was said there was q want Of equity in the bill
That there completes remedy at law That the bill
muarioue and that there n miejoinder of
ties That the will OF 1919 upon which the complain
ants relied for a recovery had not been admitted to
Gaines being the forced heir of Daniel Clark, whatever
that tight might be, 1t was recoverable at law
Upon tina argument OF the demurrers, three points
were made, upon which ths Judges could not agree;
and they certified to this court for Its decision
lst Was the bill mutifarous and have the complain
ants right TO the jointly In this Case!
OF the cause without probate the WILL up by the
Which they charge to have been destroyed
ga Has the Court jurisdiction of this cause 1t
belong exclusively TO court OF law?
On the frat point this court for which as
satisfactory they to the judges who then
heard the argument decided that the bill not multi
the purchasers of the property OF Daniel Clark had
interest in the rendition of the accounts by the
tors under the will of 1911; any with what might be
the interest of Caroline Barnes in the will Of 1919 That
those particulars ought not to be connected with the
general that it could amend
ed Ia both rcspscts in the Circuit Court, to avoid
the exceptions
Upou tho second point, this court, upon full review
of the authorities to this conclusion that both
the general and local law require the will of 1913 to DO
proved in tho Court Of Probstes before any title be
set under it, but that this result did not authorize
negative answer to the second point.
Tbs said under the circumstances of the case,
the compliments were entitled to full aad explicit an
from the defendants in regard to the wills Of 1918
and 1911, and that such being obtained might
be used evidence before the Court of Probate to
tabsh the will of 1919 and to revoke that of 1911 The
pertinent to the inquiry and nothing beyond
it, We advsrtsd to it to show that the decree of
the Circuit Court, under consideration, has
necton with the will OF 1918, and that it made by
that court under the answer given by tho court to the
The third point was has tho jurir LECTION of the
cause, does belong exclusively to of law?
This point involves the jurisdiction of the court, in
every aspect In which the bill could be viewed SO the
court considered it, The claim made in the bill for Mrs
Gaines did rest alone upon the alleged will of 1919
but also upon the allegation that she the legitimate
was forced heir the court said, the complainants
in prosecuting their rights, upon the ground Of Mrs.
1878 BE- required They must ss the
OF Mrs Gaines the fraud charged the executors to
chasers In this form of procedure the will 1911 is
brought before the court collateray. 1t is not
ton Of nuhsy, but proceeding which may enable the
court 20 gvs proper relief without dscreeing the
ten OF the will OF 1911"
Such were the given by this court to the
points which had been certified to H.
The Court in the subseq trial of the cause
between the compliments and the appellant, Mr. Pater
1,I rIarh ~ a.; go a rs. ',e h; n.,, ~
mate child, she entitled under the laws Of Louis
death
This decree made upon the pleadings and proofs
Cbnrles Patterson Hc gas on. Of IN, dsfandants Who
had demurred to the bill Before those demurrsrs
counsel hat not under oath having ayssd himseif Of
the waiver in this respect rendered to the defendants
raj rsrliastion The parties having introduced the
proofs the case was regularly in order for hearing II
vas osde in the Circut Court belov that II
would direct an issue to be made for the trial OF the
Las been sxpre,aed bv the Of the appellant in
though n was that il ourht to have
bean donc We do not think n an ocoason for such
course TO be pursued The practise OF granting issues
mted to in which the court in the fair exercise
IF its drcretion consders that Justice viii best be OBJ
fs,ued bv that course Discretiou we mean as it il
guided by what has been the practice of courts OF chan
ana Logan Harm. Ea 81 page ASH col
In the English chanoery except in the cases Of On heir
or OF rector or vicar it is not matter of right
In the courts of equity we knew of no prac-
tce establishing an issue as a matter of right In vir
ynia and others of our States the heirs right to an
su Is given by statute AS the English chancsry In the
excsptiens mentioned AZ matter Of right has allowed
them upon the ground that the comm law invests
pa-ty filing particular situaton with certain rights
of which it is the obisct of the suit TO divest him. we
The states partlcusr persons have an ntsrest in the
property OF an ancsster-that whatever might be the
evidences Ia favor OF he Authenticity and of
ths Wilt The heir, A. law os;sct 10 its bsnS done the
court viii, not eesbsh the will without the opinion OF
q jfry upon a Ssgisopt peI non -
W. have reourred 70 what has bsen hitherto decided
in this cause concerning jurisdiction to prevent here
ser in tba faher nrosyss. of IL AGAINST anv of the
afanisnts any doubt aLout itand t5at the nrncplrs
non which this cou-t has t might bs barter
uodrtood than thew seem 10 havs been n, the bar The
Circuit Conrs il ran ring N, d-cres understood II p.r
fctl w. h.ye han ma tcunr too IN ransatino what
w~syae;Jsd bv FMS coart I'm 9d How sid becsu,s il
comnrsasnds the an bisct masr mon which the iuris
Icrion of t,s cnuc VS. ad,rmsd a,a covarad all who
ysrs psrtias with the executions mentioned and their
obljgaios 70 answer siiher oiotv or sspsratev the
hill q. thev pe assd tbough the whole of than or apv
Iseser num6.r might have a common dsfence The OBJ
iect being thai final decree might be made between
the complnuans and each defendant provided the inte-
rest or propsrlv upon which t decree is TO attach was