New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-10
THE GREAT GAIaEs CASE.
Declslon Of Judge Bradley.

day. Judge Bradley delivered the followin!
opinion:
| Myra Clark Gaines vs.. the City of New
Orleans and others. Same vs. Llzardi
| Same vs.. De La Croix.-These cases are be-
fore US on mandates fro the Supreme
| Court of the United States, and motion II
made to enter the proper DEGREES, pursuant
to said mandates.
The explicit manner in which the views
of the Supreme Court are expressed in its
opinions. as found in 9th Wallace 642, and 9Th
Wallace 7l9, and in Gaines VS. Hennen, q
Howard 553, (Which last is adopted in the
present cases), very little discretion is left
to this court. Some questions. however,
have been raised, which it is necessary now
to determine.
| l. First, the complainant claims decree
not only for the lands of which the several
| defendants we're possessed at the time OF
! filing the bills respectively, but for the pro-
ceeds of lands formerly belonging to Daniel
| Clark. which the defendants had previously
possessed and sold before the fling of said
| bills. She claims to hold the defendants as
trustees for her Of the lands thus previously
| disposed of, and elects to receive the pur.
| chase money, instead of following the lands
| themselves.
This claim, think, is untenable. The
| claim Of the defendants is adverse to that
of the complainant. There is no privity be-
tween them. They stand, and have always
stood at arms length. The defendants
claimed the LANDS to be theirs by
one title; she claimed them to be hers by
another. There was no privity or trustee.
| ship between them. Had the defendants
by any6raudulent practice, or by the frau
dulent practice of their grantors or prede-
cessors lknown to them), procured the legal
title to the lands, then they might have
been held as trustees, and if they had dis
posed of the same, especially to innocent
purchasers. might have been made to re-
spond for the proceeds thereof. In such
case the land themselves might have been
placed beyond the complainant's reach, and
the proceeds might have been the only fund
to which h the complainant could resort. But
10 the present Case the defendants never
acquired the title Of the complainant. nor
legal title at all but as spurious title; and
their conveyance of the lands has trans
ierred no title to vendees; but the lands still
remain subject to the complainants title
and are recoverable by her in whosoever
hands they may be. The conveyance
thereof by the defendants to third parties
has not in the slightest degree had the
effect to place any barriers or obstacles in
the way Of the complainant to their re-
covery. Her title remains perfect and un-
impaired. Had the legal title been trans
ferred, though subject to her right to avoid
it, her election to take the proceeds would
have confirmed that title in the possessor,
and her remedy would have been exhausted.
But her election in the present Gaze does
not extingui.h her title to the lands. Being
the legal title ii remains valid; and
further act on her PARTLY way of release
or other conveyance, in addition to the act
of election, would be necessary to effectuate
justice. And to whom should such release
or conveyance be made? The persons that
would be entitled thereto have not been
made parties to the suit; and the court does
not know who they are, and can give no di-
rections on the subject. And if they had
been made parties the difficulty would not
have been surmOunted; because they can
never be converted into trustees for her by
claiming title paramount to hers without
any actual fraud on their part.
The cases in which person entitled to
the possession of personal property has been
allowed to waive his right to the specific
property, or to damages for its detention
and to sue the wrongful appropriation thereof
for the price Of it, as upon a sale. do not
bear upon the point in question. For "a re.
covery either of damages for the detention
or of the price rs for a sale, changes the
title of the property and is itself an cleo
ton to have the money instead. And the
case of Gaines vs.. Chew q Howard, 6l9);
Hallett vs. Collins, Q0 Howard, 179); Olivier
VS.. Piatt, g Howard, 1897; Jenkins VS.. Ed
ridge, (3 Story, 1872, and the other authori-
ties relating TO real estate referred to by the
counsel for the complainant, as far as have
been able to examine them, do not conflict
with the views now presented.
The DEGREES, therefore, should be con-
fined, il each case, to the lands of which
the parties respectively, either by them
selves or their tenants, were OR claimed to
ha M of m 0T linz fhf
bill. AS to lands which they may have
possessed prior to that time, they are only
liable for the rents and profits or fruits
while thus in possession.
/. In fact the bill is nothing but what is
sometimes called al ejectment bill, and this
court has jurisdiction OF the case only on
the ground of discovery, and the complain
ant should be satisfied to recover what she
could have recovered in an action of eject
meat, or the equivalent action under the
laws of Louisiana.
2. The next question relates to the ac-
of the defendants for the rents
and profits or fruits OF the lands possessed
by them respectively.
The defendants contend that they are not
liable for these, because they were posses
sors in good faith or if liable at all, they are
entitled TO compensation for their improve
ments; and they rely on those provisions of
l. The pOssessor in good faith is he who
has Just reason to believe himself the mas
ter OF the thing which he possesses.-Ar
54l4.
2. Such possessor has the right to gather
for his benefit the fruits of the thing, until it
IS claimed by the owners, without being
bound to account for them, except from
the time Of the claim for restitulion.-Art.
34l6
10 u olc hn r;c,It i,,o & aktA
from the thing reclaimed, to retain it till he
il reimbursed the expenses he may have in
cured on it.-Ib.
Whatever might be the views of this court !
On this point, were it open before US for dis
cussiOn, is OF no consequence. 1t seems to
be entirely covered by the judgment Of the
Supreme Court.
To understand that judgment it is neces.
sary to premise that tue lauds in dispute
belonged to Daniel Clark at the time of his
1eath, in August 1913; that the said Clark
eft behind him will dated in 1911, making
Richard Ref and Beverley Chew his exc
,utors, and Mary Clark, his mother. his
general legatee, which will was admitted to
probate; that this was not his last will. but
hat he made another viii! shortly before his
ieath, in which he acknowledged the com
)!ainant to be his legitimate and only !
laughter. and made her his universal lega- |
ee, giving to mis- mother an annuity and |
o other persons certain legacies, and |
making Francois Dussuau de Ia Croix, |
Iames Pilot and Joseph D. D. Bellechasse, |
lis executors; that this will was sup |
pressed. and did not, nor did her pater- |
lity come to the knowledge of the complain |
mt till about 1884, when she applied for |
,robate of said will. which was at first re- |
used; that, nevertheless, probate was !
ranted in December, 1855; and this suit wss !
therefore, commenced in December, 1856. |