The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-01-25
From the Neto Orleans Delta, January 10.
The McDOnogh Case.

lnls important case was decided yesterday BY
the supreme court against the States of MARYLAND
and Louisiana, and in favor of the cities of New
Orleans and Baltimore. ~
Chief Justice Eustis delivered an elaborate and
learned opinion. He looked upon the legacies in
favor of the cities in the nature of ous beouests
Such requests were regarded with favor By, the
law Corporations were peculiarly the objects OF
such dispositions, inasmuch as they,were the most
ethcient agents of extensive charities. Requests
like those under consideration were frequently
made to corporations. In such cases it would
generally be found that the corporations were
merely selected as the instruments of the benevo.
lence of the testator. A simple legacy to city or
corporation would not be reasonable or natural
Such legacies were always connected with chart
table uses and, in furtherance of phiianthrnpic in
tentons, the cities had, under article $50 of the
civil code full capacity to accept legacies of this
character. gTs.,I.. 80 ts.5a,ss
If, as commended, the dispositions in favor of the
cities were charged with illegal and impossible
conditions, those conditions were to be regarded,
according to article ,506sof the civil code as not
written, consequently they did not prevent the
egacies from taking effect If the conditions were
legal, and could be carried into effect, the cities
were bound thereby. If, on the contrary, those
conditions were of character reprobated by law,
then the observance of them was dispensed with
by article 1904 of the civil code, and the cities
would take the property and disregard them. I'm
der this view, he considered the legacies to the
cities as legal and valid in all respects so
Justice Rost also gave an able and lengthy
opinion, in which he concurred in the conclusion
of the chief justice, for reasons substantially the
same. s,tsa .n,-i Ga5 gF5F s ID,
Justice Dunbar concurred fully in the opinion of
the chief justice. ~ ~ sz - tela
Justice Slidell dissented from the majority of
the court, in an opinion marked with great erudi
ton and vigor of expression. John McDonogh be-
queathed his property to the cities of New Orleans
and Baltimore, for certain intents and purposes
which the testator had described with minute par
ticuarity, and for the execution of which he had
contrived complicated machinery. He regarded
the dispositions as containing conditions of an il
legal character, and contrary to public policy
The title created by those dispositions was un-
known to our law, under which the titles to pro-e
perty are few and simple. The cities could not
accept these legacies in the mode prescribed by
the testator, could they fulfil the conditions
which the testator had imposed on them. The in
tenion of the estator was to give the property to
the cities, if they could strictly carry out those
conditions; if not, the testator clearly intended
that his property should go to the States If the
cities were allowed to accept these requests, and
disregard the conditions imposed on them. it would
be vioatve of the intention of the testator. Such
absolutely, although the tesator had declared that
be meyer intended dollar to benefit the Golfers of
the Cities According to- article l,705 of the civil
code the intention of the testator must be adhered
to, and that could only be done in this case by Civ
ing the property to the States of Louisiana and
Maryland. The heirs, although not parties to this
controversy, were claiming the property in a
different tribunal; but, in the opinion of Justice
SEdell, they could not assert title superior to
that Of the States He therefore thought the States
were entitled to the property in controversy
In the opinion Of all the judges, the City of Bal
tmore was not legally represented before the court.