The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-02-04

the Union 'l' y s''s up
The Batture No. 3.
| In my last number upon the right and expedien-
cy of disposing of part Of the Batture as propo-
sed by the Council of the Second Municipality, |
stated that after quiet and undisturbed enjoyment
Of more than twenty-five years, the first attempt
was made by Miss Laura Amarylls Deabigarre
to recover the share of the Batture formerly be-
longing to her father, Peter Delabigarre whose
sole heiress she alleged herself be. She claimed
directly under Gravier, and invoked the Judgment
of the old Superior Court which decided that the
Batture belonged to the front propnetors, and not
to the city and she insisted that as the heir of her
father she not bound by the donation contained
in the contract of the goth September, 1920, be-
cause it was signed only by Lafon, who tesla
mentary executor, without authority to give away
the property of the estate, and because it was not
signed by Oddie, who it is declared in the act APP
peared agent That the act was void at the
time, and she had right to it from the city
The Second Municipality at first asserted title
In the Batture but upon an amendment of the
Pleadings desisted from any such pretension, and
claimed the possession and administration of it
under that contract, which they averred was ded-
icaton of it in perpetuity to public uses, and that
the contract was not legally speaking, donation,
but compromise OF existing controversies between
the city and the front proprietors and that the con-
tract had been fully carried out and executed and
ratified by the heirs of Delabgarre and they could
no longer contest the authority of the executor,
from whom they had received the estate after the
dedication, and themselves paid the notes given by
him to the Mayor, as stated in the act.
The widow and heirs of Livingston were made
parties to this suit but declined taking any part in
the contest, confessng their willingness if the
contract was set aside to come in for their share
of the property.
The cause Of the plaintiff urged and sus-
tanned by able and eloquent counsel, who used
every argument which ingenuity could suggest
and who made the halls of justice resound with
the name and the wrongs Of the fair Amaryllis
But it was in vain they insisted that the act was a
Donation void for want of form, not susceptible of
ratification, and in way binding on the heirs of
Delabigarre; and that their client was entitled to
recover the portion of Batture which formerly be-
onged to the estate of Peter Deabigarre, as still
her property, 1t was in vain. they commended that
the Council Of the Second Municipality had decla-
red unanimously, that the Balture to its full extent
was no longer required for public convenience, and
and that she had therefore right to the reversion
Of it. The Supreme Court of this State, after
full and elaborate argument, decided every point
against her. They declared that the contract of
September, 1920, compromise and not do
nation, and that it had been executed and carried
out by the plaintiff herself; that the Bature is not
the property OF the city, but is public place. ded-
cated by that act to public use, under the admins
a. 49, a. o.. IL
who had no right to sell or dispose of it, but that
the sovereign authority alone could do so, if it had
become no longer useful to the public, and public
utility required it. The principles settled by the
Court in that fairly set forth in the memo
rial Of the Council, lately presented to the Legisa
ture, representing the sovereign authority of the
State, and having jurisdiction cogxtensive with
its territory every part of it. That Judgment
remains unreversed and in full force.
The same learned counsel, although they alleged
that Miss Arnaryllis was sole heiress, were not
driven from their purpose The prize was too
great not to try all possible chances They knew
that the judgment was final and irrevocabe as il
relates to their client, but she mad sister who had
in truth sold out all her interest in the remaining
lots to the plaintiff. They next bring her forward
as the eoheir of the sole heir of Deabigarre. and
finding that in the State Courts the question was
settled they instituted new action on the same
grounds in the Circuit Court of the United States,
with view of bringing under review in the Fed
eral Courts the opinion Of our own State Tribunal
In the last resort. That is yet pending, and
may probably be tried during the present winter.
What may be the decision need not be predicted,
but one thing is well settled, that the Federal Courts
invariably follow the decision of the highest State
Courts In matters Of local law
There was pending at the same time in the State
Courts a case somewhat similar, of Minor as as
slgnee of Wilkins against the Municipality in
which he claimed undivided fourth of about
sixty feet front New Levee street something
less than fifteen feet, extending to the river Upon
the decision OF the case of Deabigarre adversely
to the plaintiff Minors counsel took non suit in
the State Court and Immediately instituted the suit
anew In the Circuit Court of the United States
But OF that case propose to give some account in
my next number 1t is enough to say at present,
that Minors counsel, in common with those of
Miss Delabigarre, finding the State Courts against
their Pretensions, determined to multiply their
chances OF success in the lottery of litigation, by
appealing in effect from the State to the Federal
Tribunals.