The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-27

other les arpents at that time couo nave scarceiy
reached the sum Of $40 600, after lapse OF over
notwithstanding the very great increase Oh tne
city in extent and population. -.
fbird-After the city made the purchase from
Evariste Blanc, streets were EXTENDED .nrougn
this portion Of ground, and large sums Q. money
were expended by the city in draining u ana IN
grading the streets and making bridges ana oaner
improvements to which were calculated 10 give
the land value, by fitting IL for setuemen. ana
occupation by growing population, as Pa's %
the city. In 1887, when the split OF specuiauon
which displayed itself in 1885 had reached It's
height, the city offered all the property II nao
bought from Evariste Blanc for sale, ana y was
sold, | believe, for prices exceeding s6Ooouo.
Very soon after these sales the financial revusion
which renders that year memorable set IN, ana
very few if any Of the sales we're completsa.
Afterwards, In 1913. the other lots embraced IN
the purchase from the attorneys In fact OF mary
Clark were again offered for sale, and oeheVe
the city realized from the sales made, when en-
braced the entire property so acquired Win ths
exception of what is contained In streets ana
squares, about the sum Of $4,000 or $4,000.
Fourth-A very large proportion Of the value OF
the lots formed out of the l35 arpents IN super
fcies of the land bought from the attorneys IN
fact of Mary Clark was given to them by the
large expenditures made by the city. out Of its own
funds, for draining the land and for grading the
streets, and building bridges and making various
other improvements necessary to make the iots
II
All the lots formed out Of the l35 arpents OF su-
perfcies, purchased by Evariste Blanc from the
attorneys iD fact Of Mary Clark, have been held
by third possessors under titles derived from the
city since the date of the sales made in or about
Isis.
The first suit of Mrs. Gaines for the recovery Of
this property was instituted in 1886, and was termi
mated in April, 1852, by final decree dismissng
her bill .-
Suits we're begun by her q second time against
q AZ nhar If
after the 22d day of November, 1866, and the pre-
scription of ten years has been acquired by very
many of them, / believe, so that any right OF ac-
ton which Mrs. Gaines might have had against
them is now barred by that prescription.
sixth-A very great number Of the present pos.
SCISSORS of the property in question, have erected
buildings, and made various valuable improve
ments on their respective lots and all these per-
sons. in my opinion, are entitled, If Mrs. Gaines
should obtain judgments against them for the re-
cOvery of their respective lots.
/. To recover the value of the materials and
of the price of the workmanship employed and
expended in their improvements, or to be reim-
bursed the enhanced value given by them to the
soil.
2. To recover also the value given to the lots
held by them respectively by the works and ex'
penditures of the city in draining the land, grad
ing the streets, building bridges, etc., and making
the variouss other improvements necessary to
make them accessible and fit for use and occupa-
ton as before mentioned; and
3. To retain possession of their respective lots,
in case of Judgment against them on the question
of ownership, until they are paid the value OF
their improvements. or sum equal to the en-
HANGED value given by them to the soil.
From all the information have been able to
obtain, there is reason to believe that the 1856
arpents of ground in question, would not be, to-
dsy If il were in the condition In which it was
when bought by Eyariste Blanc, of value ex-
ceeding $50 600, Notwithstanding the rapid growth
and extension of the city since that time.
IT is not my purpose in this letter to make an
argument, but merely to state the conclusions 70
which have arrived on the points mentioned.
Nor will l assert that the conclusions to which
have arrived are absolutely true and ndisputable.
But this will say: / do believe they cannot be
successfully disputed in court Of justice.
The sale to Evariste Blanc was made and his
possession under it began under the authority of
the Code Of 1905; and he, and all those deriving
title through him, were and are, In my opinion,
entitled to make the fruits and revenues gathered
and received from the property their own, and to
be reimbursed their expenses incurred IN making
valuable improvements on the property, or the
enhanced value given to it by those improve
ments. And it Is further my opinion that the
right of persons to be paid for useful improve
ments made by them on the land, and to retain
possession of 1t after Judgment evicting them
until payment for their improvements Is made to
them, is q real right under the laws Of Louisiana !;
and that the right, when asserted in our courts,
State or federal, will be enforced against Mrs.
Gaines.
But whilst this is clear to my mind, it ia equally
clear that in no case will the present possessors
of any of the property in question be entitled to
recover from the city any portion Of the sums
which they may have expended In making useful
improvements on the property. The law gives
them the right to recover those sums from Mrs.
Gaines before she can take the property on which
the improvements have been made out of their
possession and affords them the means of enforc-
ing those rights through the agency of the courts.
If they fail to assert the right, and to employ the
| means given to them by the law Of enforcing it
tie fault will be theirs, and they can have nc
| claim, founded either in law or equity for claim
| irg anything from the city for the value OF the
| improvements made by them.
In conclusion, will only add that in my view
| the city can in no event be made responsible il
its capacity of warrantor to those holding. under
titles derived from it, for anything more than the
| price received by it, when it sold the respective
| portions, ard the value of any fruits and reve
nues derived from the property since the institu
| ton of the suits now pending against them which
the present possessors may be required to pay i
they do not succeed in making good the defense
| to which they are now entitled.
My object in addressing you this letter is not 4
raise any objection to compromise being effecte
with Mrs. Gaines on the part of the city. AL
though the litigation as to the title to the proper
in question, between Mrs. Gaines and the presen
possessors of it, is not by any means at an end, an
Mr.. Mcconnell and myself are preparing to avai
ourselves of the various defenses which are sti
open to them In behalf of the portion of tn
possessors represented by us, l repeat that
have nothing to say against compromise, an
only wish to say that, in my view, the amount
be paid TO Mr.. Gaines, in the event of a comprt
mise ought to be fixed with reference to the valu
of the 1856 arpents of land, spoken of, in the cond
ton in which it was in 1921 when sold by th
attorneys in fact of Mary Clark to Evarist
Blanc, or, in other words, that it should be dete
mined by deducting from its present value th
cost of the valuable improvements made upon th
land, whether by the city in draining it and graf
ing the streets extending through it, ETC., ETC..
by the present possessors in the cton OF built
iDgs, making Enclosures, or the filing MP an
paving of side walks, etc., etc. Yours, very r
specially.
(Signed) MILES TAYLOR.
The report of the drainage commissioners wi
referred TO the committee on streets and landing
The controller reported a number of adjudic
tons, which will be found published else wher
Referred to streets ane landings.
II A resolution by Mr.. Farrell, approving the adj
dication Of the contract for the Ninth Street Ma
ket to o. NJ. Redon, for sl2. 200, TO Dec. 81, l86
was adopted on its second reading.
Mr.. Farrell, under Suspension of the rule
offered q resolution, appointing joint commit
of five, three from the lower and two from the u
! ner board To reuuest of the Legislature an exte