New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-14


who submitted written opinions to the fol-
lowing questions:
First. Does the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Mrs. Myra Clark Gaines
VS.. the City of New Orleans affect the case
of the present claim now before the Council!
If so, to what extent?
Second. Do YOU advise, after an examlna-
ton of the case, that the city shall still de-
fend the case, or should settle the matter Dy
compromise II the latter. on what terms"
Those attorneys fully cOncurred IN opin-
ion, and, in answer to the first 1nterroga-
tory, said that ''said decision is conclusive
as to all the ground in controversy not alien
ated by the city prior to the twenty.second
Of December, 1856, the date on which Mrs.
Gaines filed her suit"
"And az to that part of the ground in dis
pute, which had been alienated by the city
prior to the institution of said suit, and is
now claimed and occupied by the citv's ven
dees against whom Mrs. Gaines is now
prosecuting another suit in the United States
Circuit Court), they are of opinion that the
decision in question virtually settles every
point that can be raised by the defendants
on the trial of said last mentioned suit, ex-
cept such special defenses as may apply in
dividually to the vendees respectively, and
these special defenses can only be OF two
kinds, to wit:
l. Defendants may successfully resist Mrs.
Gaines suit by showing title in themselves
acquired from her.
2. By showing title by prescription-tha
is, BY showing they have held the property
for ten consecutive years, under title
translative of property acquired by them IN
good faith.
No one claims titles acquired from Mrs
Gaines, which disposes of the first point.
The question of prescription, these attor.
neys show, eau not avail the defendants,
I.~AA u. /, E,S. Ahn Ay$y IS
cerned, it makes no difference whether hrs.
Gaines gains or loses the sui. against the
city's vendees, as if Mrs. Gaines gains the
suit the city will be responsible to their
vendees, the defendants, in warranty, and
if the defendants gain the suit, the city will
be liable to Mrs. Gaines for the same
amount that she would have been in war
ranty to the defendants if they had lost the
case. They say 1t will be seen that, so
far as the city is interested IN discharging
her legal responsibilities, as we'll to Mrs.
Gaines as to att other parties interested in
this controversy, her liability is fixed by the
decision in question"
She will stand unaffected or affected as
much the one way rs the other, whether
ecuted against them by Mrs. Gaines.
If this be true, how idle is further resist
ance on her part, when we consider the
necessary waste of money thrown away IN
contestiug an already twice decided case,
and both decisions rendered by the highest
judicial tribunal of the nation, if not of the
world, and The last. most lengthy, labored
and emphatic decision, rendered after hav-
ing given long and attentive audience to the
ablest counsel of the nation, who, for more
than quarter Of a century had been en-.
gagged in preparing the cause. The coun-
sci further says: "For all of said ground
sold by the city prior to the twenty second
December, 1856, the city is bound to refund
the purchase money wi interest. And
this, in any event, whether her vendees win
or loose the suits now pending against them"
In response to the second interrogatory,
these counsel say they "can not advise the
city longer to defend the case, and do ad-
wise a settlement of the same by compro-
mise, if possible" On the basis Of the ia
bility of the city, as stated, they say: "Mrs.
Gaines claims adjusted, our city real estate
titles will be clear, and large portions OF the
city, now falling into decay for want of re-
pair, will at once be improved, and soon at
tain quadruple value. Thus, by way of
taxation, yielding large revenues to the
city, as we'll as looping off the enormous
annual expenses to which the city has been
put for many years in defending herself
against the claims of Mrs. Gaines"
A careful examination of the decisions of
the Supreme Court, and of the opinions Of
those attorneys selected by the Finance
Committees of the City Council, "of known
against the claimant" together with the
resolution offered Dy the committee as part
Of their report, to appoint committee to
recommend an amount that should be paid
to said Mrs. Gaines in compromise, to quiet
her titles to all property sold by the city, and
now claimed by her." fixes the conclusion
irresistibly upon the mind of any unpreju-
1jnn hot vi hy-f hn
city in this matter will be simply vexatious
and wasteful, and that the city owes it. in
good faith to those who have purchased
portions of this property from her, to quiet
their titles by settlement of the matter
with Mrs. Gaines.
The effect of this defect in titles on those
who have purchased portions Of this proper
ty from the city is exceeding y injurious in
this: Il prevents them from improving the
property, as no one will improve property
when they know the title is defective. They
can not use it as security on which to OBJ
tain loans, as no capitalist will lend or
mortgage on property when the title Is de-
fective; and they can not sell, as no one will
purchase property when they know the title
to be bad. The consequence is that this
large district of the city, comprising forty
seven squares and more than a thousand
lots, is dilapidating and deteriorating in
real value, the city and State thereby losing
the revenue that would accrue from the i'm
provement and prosperity of that portion
of the city.
This is propitious time to compromise
this matter, for the reason that Mrs. Gaines,
though a resident Of New York. and ad-
vanced in age, is present in the city. and
the City Council under the new charter,
composed of but one body, and few in num-
Der, and of the highest character and bust.
ness capacity, and assisted by a city At
torney of great ability, there is every pros.
pect that fair and equitable settlement can
be made, if the matter is postponed. Life
is uncertain, and in the event of Mrs. Gaines
death the business will become complicated
by her rights falling into other and several
hands, and instead of dealing with one per
son as now, many persons may have to be
consulted, and should Mrs. Gaines find it to
her interest to sell out her claims, those
who might purchase would do SO for
speculation and would eXtort every cent
the law would give them.
No one can read the first and last para
graphs of the decision of the Supreme Court
Of the United States in the case OF Gaines
VS.. the city of New Orleans, Wallace. 697
and 71S, without being impressed with the
belief that the court considered the litiga-
ton in that suit unnecessary and vexatious,
and an unwarrantable attempt to deprive
Mrs. Gaines of her just rights. If another
suit, involving the same questions, should
be taken to that court, it would be treated
with little favor.
1t is proper here to remark again that we
refer, in this communication, only to such
property claimed by Mrs. Gaines, the titles
TO which have been substantially settled in
her favor by the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the cases of
Mrs. Gaines VS.. Hennen and the city of New
Orleans.
May not reasonable hope be entertained
that the city authorities will take up this