The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-04-04
What IS the Suburb st. Mary and Bat
ture Of the Same ):
Events from 1905 to 1879.
The Right Of the City to the BattUr'
Recognized by the Supreme
Court in 1874.
TIE Decision Missing from the kecords
And Not Reported.
Effect OF Judge Woods's Decision.

v;th;n a line lust above Custombouse street,
line lust below Barracks street, Rampant stree'
and the Mississippi River, and was surrounded
bv forti6ca;ions. The portions Of ground below,
above and in the rear Of the city were owned by
v.r;ous parties, whose property was at different
t;mes laid Of by surveyors into squares and |
Sold These tracts Of land we're deslgnated as
suburbs or faubcurgs, and the names then gwen
to the different suburbs are to this date gwen IA
acts of sale OF property.
Between the line Of fortitication OF the old city
and the lower line Of the suburb st. Mary, which
was land is now) the upper line Of Common
street was part of what was known as the
(" Commons"
The suburb st. Mary extended from Common
to Delord street on It's front line, when WIS
Tchonpitoulas street, on VIII; 81 the ievee was al
that time built. The lower line Of the suourD
ran out Common street, tse upper line starting
at the corner Of TchoupitouIas and Dsloid
streets. crossed st. Joseph street, striking Juha
street at tie corner Of philippa Or Dryades The
suburb has extended to the rear beyond the
or;cina! limit, SO that the ground now embraced
within the above lines as extended Is "hat Is
called the Suburb st Merry.
The batture Of the surburb st. Mary is al that
ground in its front from Tchdupitoulas street to
the Mississippi River and is about the most valu-
able property in the city. Hundreds OF me
buildings have been erected on the same, and
these are occupied as stores by leading mer-
chants Of our city engaged III the grocery ana
Western produce trade.
1903 to 1920.
From 1905 to 1920 there was controversy oe-
tween the front proprietors' in the Fauoours
st. Mary, as to the right Of batture 10 front OF
the said taubourg, as to who were the Original
proprictors, and also with the city OF New or'
leans as to the prcprietorship OF sad battule.
In 1920. By an act OF ompromise between Ed
ward Livingston and others, then ''frout pro-
pr;etors," ana the city of New Orleans, the river
front of the Faubourg St. Mary was extended
from Tchoupitoulas to New Leyee street. ana me
pround between said streets VAS laid of and sold,
which made two tiers y. squares above foydras
street and one below it. The city OF Ne" OF
leans. in that act, agreed to build levee on
What il now known as New Leyee or Peters street,
from Canal to Calliope street; and tor the build
mo Of that oyce these 'iront proprietors exc
cuted mortgage on their portion OF the ne"
squares being the front OF what they then
owned, to secure the payment for building said
wee, and entrusted the balance o. the batture
in front OF New Levee street to the city OF New
Orleans, for the use Of the public.
| 1870 to 1850.
| The question whether the nOtarial act OF 1920
was donation, or compromise, or simple
temporary rust t. the city by the front proprl-
etors" gave rise to another long series OF itisa-
tor ! in the courts from 1920 to 1850.
As . part Of the history OF the ba.ture, the
j state Legislature in 1886 prohibited the second
Municipality from selling any portion OF that bat.
| ture. This act had ref renee to the division Of
the city of New Orleans ia municipalities.
| In 1913 the batture had SO increased IN width
| a. to be detrimental to com mercs, when the city
attempted to sell the useless portion, e. us less
for commerce, which gave rise t, another lltiSa
The Legislature in 1850 repealed the eleventh
section OF the act OF 1886 prohibiting the SAFE o.
the ba.ture, and permitted the Municipality No
to Law off two additional streets IL front OF New
Levee street and, on agreement Of tEe orlglha
parties Cor their representatives, to the compro
mise Of 1920 to the sale OF the batture. the Coun
ell OF Municipality No. was authorized to lay OF
into lots "all that portion of said batturo not re
served for streets, and the accommodation or tn
public and the convenience Of commerce, ana t.
dispose Of the same according to the terms ans
conditions Of said agreement
1850 20 1878.
Rv notarial act of June, 1851! between the repre-
sentatiyes of all the original "iront proprle ors
named in the notaiai act OF 1870, with tn
authorities OF Municipality No. 2 the city sold o
the batture two tiers OF squnres for the Who'll
front Of the Faubours ST. Mary, the sald square
r being embraced within Front, Fulton and Na'
yevee streets, intersected by the extension OF tn
cross Streets Ono-thrd If the price reallze'
: from this sale went to the sinking funl of tn
a city of New Cr aus, one-third to the Irrasrr
Of the Municipal ty No 2. and oue-.hird to tn
original front propretors," the trout proprietor
transferring to the Municipality No. full! title
all the batture and future accretiOns III front c
Front street.
II All tn bat.ure in front O: Front street was i
1851 with all lis future a,cretons. and by permls
sion Of the legsla' i've act OF 1879, vested by tn
: original ''fiont proprietors" in Municipality Nc
E q and since bv its successor the city OF New u
leans been laid OIL into squares 10y the extenslo
g of streets leading t. the river and the laying O
a of the following new streets parallel to From
street. viz: Delta, Water, Pile and New streets
anc this ground to certain extent has been sol
!by the city Of New Orleans to various p rsOns.
So far as the title to the nature Of the Fat
bourg st. Mary in front OF Front street was cor
c.rned. it was always con- idered to be in the cit
| Of New Orleans in full ownership from 1851 ur
III 1850 when tie State Legislature in act No. z
was induced to grant the whole undisposed POI
ton of il from Canal street to Cal'iope. or Deinr
street, to the New Orleans, Mobile and Chats
nooca Railroad Company.
The CITY in the meantime had attempted to Sc
that portion between Girod and hotre Dam
= strt eta to Charles Morgan, on which conte'
arose between the railroad company ano me CT
~ New Orleans and Charles organ. The frs
sut being No. /, Of tho ighth Distric. Court {
e New Orleans, followed by supplemental suit
}. the Chatano,g ga Railroad Company oot T. mn
.'is'rict Court against the city restraining III
y c, \ from selling any portion Of the battuIe Q
G The ground that it belonged to the State, bein
It q locus p,t,icas, and that the Legislature OF tn
j tate hal given it to the railroad company.
d This case was argued in the Eighth Distr
) Court ab ,ut seven days. Judge Dbbe mainiail
y lug his injunction; in the State supreme CouT
!. three days, and resulted in a reversal by II
latter of the judgment of the lower court. al
Ms also argued for.two days in rehesrins befo
!, the Supreme Court, when, on the 4th OF Ma
g 18Th Judge Howell, as the organ OF the cour
i, rendered an opinion adverse to the pretensicl
J Of the railroad company ard the -ts.e, and d
K creed the title in fee simple to be absolutely
tile city OF New Orleans.