Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1868-08-20

with similar result. In 1S47 she first gained
decided success Justice Wayne, her steady
friend, almost her advocate, declared fol
the Court that her claim to property in New
Orleans, now occupied by parties whose Ii
tie came from Rclf and Chew, executors O.
the will of 1871, was valid. He decided tha
she was the legitimate daughter of DAME
Clark, and consequently, under the laws o.
Louisiana, could not be dispOssessed entire
ly, as the will of 1911 assumed to do. She
must be sferced heir" to portion. In this
case Chief Justice fancy did not sit, neal
family relative being interested; Justice
Mclean did not; and Justice Catron, being
indisposed, did not. 1t was the first decid-
ed success.
In 1851 came adversely. Judge Catron
pronounced the opinion of the Court I'M
favorable to every claim which Mrs. Gaines
set up. A bill in equity, claiming the share
to which her mother (Zulime) would, as the
legal wife of Daniel Clark, be entitled by
the Louisiana law, in spite of the will Of
1871, was summarily dismissed on the
ground that she was not the legitimate
child of Daniel Clark.
To this, of course, Judge Wayne, Joined
by Judge Daniel, dissented.
But again, in 1860, there was a new de-
cision. In the interim the destroyed will of
1918 had been admitted to probate, and this
probate, upon appeal, sustained in the
Louisiana courts, its contents being estab-
lished by the recollections of those who
heard it read by Clark.
This important point, gained in 1856, had
claimed victory from the jaws of defeat.
The whole case-law, fact, technicalities,
side-issues, everything-was reviewed, and
upon every point decided in favor of Mrs.
Gaines. Justice Wayne once more speaking
for the Court. Justice Catron again differ
ed, and the Chief Justice (whose interest
through his relatives seems to have ceased),
and Judge Grier joined him. Catron's
opinion is most unfriendly, and reviews with
caustic severity the apparently weak points
In the claimants case In summing up he
said:
''If the decision in Twelfth Howard (his
own opinion of 1851 be overthrown, ruin
must be the consequence to very many who
have had confidence in Its soundness.
Relying upon it as conclusive an immense
amount Of the disputed property had chang
ed hands, and become vastly improved in
the intervening nine years. He added Qhis
is directly denied by Judge Davis in the de-
cision of 1869 that Clark was ruined man
at his decease. ''IIis failure was very large;
his estate was wholly insolvent. The pur-
chascrs have in fact paid his debts TO large
amount. Many of them are yet unpaid !"
The property claimed he said, s'has proba-
bly, increased in value five hundred fold
since 1S20," the date of Relf and Chew's
sales whence the defendants derievd their
title.
Judge Grier was scarcely less pronounced
in his views. He closed bis dissent with
these vigorous words:
81 wholly dissent from the opinion of the
majority of the court in this case, both as to
the law and the facts. But do not think it
necessary to vindicate my opinion by again
presenting. to the public view history of
the scandalous gossip which has been buried
under the dust of half a century, and which
a proper feeling of delicacy should have suf-
fered to remain SO therefore dismiss the
case, as hope, for the last time, with the
single remark that if it be the law of Louisi-
ana that will can be established by the dim
recollections, imaginations, or Inventions of
anile gossips, after forty-five years to disturb
the titles and possessions of bona fide pur-
chasers, without notice of an apparently
indefeasible legal title, Hdud equidcm in
0ideo, mirror nedgis." q do not indeed
envy your position, but rather wonder at it. }
The particular case decided was against
Duncan N. Henncn, of New Orleans, who
held title for square of ground bounded by
Phillippi, Circus, and Poydras streets. This
had come into his hands through the follow
ing transfers:
1920. Sold by Relf and Chew, executors
Of Daniel Clark, and attorneys in fact for
Mary Clark to Azelic Lavigne
1886. Azelic Lavigne to ]. Hiddeston.
1886. j. HiddlestOn to New Orleans and
Carrollton Railroad Company.
1874. N. o. g. G. II. II. Co. to d. N. Hen
men.
After twenty-six years possession, nine of
which had been in confirmation of decision
OF this court, Hennen was dispossessed Ky
this decree.
The decision of 1860 would seem to be
conclusive and final. 1t was so intended to
be. But Mrs. Gaines was still resisted.
Once more, in 1868, her claims have been
confirmed. Her old friend, Judge Wayne,
and her old-can we say opponent ?-Judge
Catron, are off the bench. Judge Davis
spoke the opinion of himself, Chief Justice
Chase, and Associates Nelson. Clifford, and
Field, while Judges Grier, Swayne, and
Miller dissented.
This decision-seventh mandate from the
Supreme Court ofthe United Siates-is sure
ly final. Opening it Judge Davis said:
1T was supposed after the decision in
Gaines vs. Hennen CA Howard), that the
litigation. pursued in one form or another
for over thirty years by the complainant, to
vindicate her rights in the estate of her faith
er, was ended.
And in conclusion he asked:
"Can we not indulge the hope that the
rights of Myra Clark Gaines in the estate of
her father, Daniel Clark, will now be recog-
nized?"
Such is the outline of the progress of the
Gaines case through thirty-four years of
law. The legal reader can turn to the books
and study the reports at leisure. Our sketch
will be completed with brief reference to
the moving spirit of the long effort.
Married in 1882, learning her true history,
though not fully, soon after, commencing
amid the pestilence of New Orleans, wi
dow in 1886. The yellow fever struck down
her husband in few hours. She was alone,
with three little children, slender fortune,
few friends, in the midst of actual enemies,
for her bold claims produced the most bitter
opposition. A fearful duty stood before
her.
Somewhat later, she met General Gaines
He was warmly interested in her history;
ana he could not, doubtless resist the win
ling eloquence of her address, or her pi-
quaint charms of person. They were mar
ried, and thence till now the heroine of the
story is not Myra Davis, Myra Clark, nor
Myra Clark Whitney, but Myra Clark
Gaines.
The laws delays were fearfuly expensive.
The little fortune received at her marriage
soon melted-she had spent the whole of
ler husbands estate. She had borrowed of
his family, and she had borrowed of every
one who was bold enough to listen to her
persuasive voice, for "she talked the money
lut of their pockets"
Nobody could listen fifteen minutes to her
without sharing in her enthusiasm and per-
ect conviction of ultimate success. She had
eed the ablest lawyers in the land with
orincely retainers when she had money; and
she had more than once plead her own case
when money could not be obtained. She
xnew the law perfectly. She had mastered
letails as well as principles. She knew pre-
,edents, and did not stumble upon quibbles.
once, it is said, she spoke two hours and
lalf to jury, and won her case.
Once more with a friend and partner in |
ler struggle, she fought forward. General |
Gaines devoted his time and his fortune to |
he work. For ten years the gallant old |
General and his beautiful young wife plan
ned and executed their campaigns together. |
She had youth, fire, and energy; he had |
wealth, position, and a chivalrous devotion |
10 her cause