New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-10
NEW ORLEANS FRIDAY,

decree to be entered now. 1t seems to me
! that the6ecree of the Supreme Court in the
! case of Hennen, thus reafirmed and adopted
in This case, has fully answered the question
rs to the claim of good faith on the part of
defendants, as bearing both on the matter
of rents and profits, and on the mat
| ter of reclamation for improvements.
The decree in the Hennen case declares:
"That the said Richard Relf and Beverley
Chew, at the time and times when. under
the pretended authority aforesaid, they
caused the property so described and
claimed by the defendant, Hennen, to be set
up and sold by public auction. ON the nine
teenth day of December, 1920, and when
they executed their act of sale aforesaid, of
the twenty-eighth day of December, 1920,
to the said Azelie Lavigne, had no legal
right or authority whatever so to sell and
dispose of the same, or in any manner to
ALLEVIATE the came; that the said sale at
auction, and the said act of sale to Azelie
wholly unauthorized and illegal, and are
utterly null aud void; and that the defend.
ant, Hennen, at the time when he
purchased the property SO described
and claimed by him as aforesaid,
was bound to take notice of the
circumstances which rendered the actings
and doings of the said Beverley Chew and
and void; and that he. the said Hennen
ought to be deemed and held, and is hereby
deemed and held to have purchased the
property in question, with full notice that
the said sale 1T auction. under the pretended
authority of the said Richard Relf and Bev-
erly Chew, and their said act of sale to said
Azelie Lavigne were illegal, null and void,
and in fraud of the rights of the person or
persous entitled to the succession of the
rR no Fur do
creed that the complainant was justly and
lawfully entitled to the property claimed
and held by Hennen, together with all the
yearly rents and profits accruiDg from the
same from the time he went into possession,
and they remanded the cause to this court
with directions.
To cause Hennen to surrender all the
property claimed and held by him into the
hands Of complainant.
2. To cause the amount to be taken of the
yearly rents and profits accrued and accru-
ing from the property since it came into
Hennen's possession. and to be paid to the
complainant; such account to be taken sub
ject to the Jaws Of Louisiana in cases ofsuch
recovery as is now decreed in favor of the
complainant.
Such was the decree in the Hennen case
In the case now before US. the Supreme
Court, in its opinion, says that the sales
made by Relf and Chew (under whose con-
vevances the defendants claim title),
whether made as executors or attorneys of
Mary Clark, we're void and conveyed no
title &c Watt, I'll and 712); and after advert
ing to the fact that the defendants say they
are purchasers in good faith for value with
out notice, or have acquired titles from
those who were, add (page 7l6), 1--WE can
not see, in view of the discussion already
given to this case, how this plea can be true,
but as it cannot avail the defendants, if true,
it is unnecessary to discuss the evidence
further in order to ascertain whether it is
true or false. For the question at issue is
only On the legal title"
The court further holds that the plea of
good fsith can only aid the defendants on
the plea of prescription. They then add:
But the title of the complainant is not
barred by prescription, according to the
law of Louisiana. This defense was made
in the case of Gsines VS.. Hennen, and dis
posed of adversely to the defendant, and is
no longer an open question in this court.
The prescription relied upon by the de-
PENDANTS in this case is the same that was
relied upon by the defendant in that, and as
the proofs are common 10 both, it follows,
as the plea OF prescription was not available
in the one, it is not in the other" The
court, in conclusion, says: sThe questions
of law and fact applicable to those rights
(the rights of the cOmpiainant) were deter
mined in the case of Gaines VS.. Hennen.
After argument by able counsel. and ma
ture consideration, We have reatiirmed that
decision"
Thus, taking the opinion and decree of the
Supreme Court in the HeDnen case, and
their opinion in this case, together, it is
very manifest that the Supreme Court has |
against the plea of good &i,h set
up bs the defendants.
1t is true that, in this case, the court con-
sidering the legal title as the question in |
volved, seem to regard the tact of good |
faith, except as bearing on the question of ,
as not material; but they also, |
in conformity with the views expressed in |
Gaines VS.. Hennen, say that they do not |
see how the plea OF good faith can bo true, |
and they expressly adopt the decision in |
that case against the plea of prescription in |
reference to which they admit that the plea |
Of good faith is pertinent, and also under |
stand them to adopt the defnitive decree |
made in that case, which awards rents and |
profits to the complainant and against the |
defendant.
And this (as we have seen from the Code) !
could not be done if the defendants were |
purchasers in good faith.
The whole effect of their decision, there
'ore, is against the plea of good faith for any
purpose whatever.
The judgment is that the titles attempted |
20 be created and passed by Helf and Chew
we're bad-uot Only bad, but Woodland tina: !
.he defendants, claiming under and through |
hem, ought to have known it. This judg-
nent we are bound to carry out We can
Tot inquire whether it is right or wrong |
We are to presume that all the questions
involved in it were duly and fully discussed,
Is we have no doubt they were.
The DEGREES presented to me seem to be in
with the views and mandate of |
,a StJr,- pn,a hot Of a
,ity of New Orleans, which will be 80 modi-
led as to embrace only the lands which |
we're in possession Of the city at the time of !
ling the bill in this case.