The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-07-21
THE vlCKsnURG, SHREVEPORT AND
TEXAS MAILR0AD.
opinion Of Judge woods, Of the United
states Circuit Court.


We published In our issue of the Goth OF
June last the decretal portion Of the judgment
rendered on the previous day by Judge
Woods. OF the United States Circuit Court,
sitting In the District OF Louisiana, In the
case OF Henry II. jackson and other bond
holders versus the Vicksburg, Shreveport and
Texas Railroad Company, John 7. Ludeling
and others.
We now publish the opinion Of the court
containing the reasons for judgment In the
case referred to-.
United States Circuit Court, District OF Lonj...
isna-Henry r. jackson ct vi. Va. Vicksb Ar q
shreveport aud Texas Railroad Compa,4i ~ Ar.
John T. Ludelipg OF AL, No. 5033.
For statement OF the facts reference h taade
IN tho report OF this case in 21st Wa lace 4tj ana
I'd Woods, 254.
Al the April term, 1876, OF this Court. thiu
cause was heard upon exceptions u the report 81
the master. The court, after expressing its
views generally on tho questions raised BY the
exceptions, but withous paseing In detail i,pon
them, feooinmitted the cause to the master, with
instructions to ascertain and report what i'm.
provemenss and bttterments upon the property
Vi the Vicksburg, Shreveport and Texas Railroad
Company remain on the same which were con-
structed or placed there by the defendants dur
Ing their occupancy, and the value Of tho mate
rails thereof. and the price Of the workmanship
on the same.
The master was also required to state an
interest account upon the price of the work.
time OF the expenditures for them at the rate
Of five per cent per annuu.
On the 14th Of March, 1877, the master filed
his report made under this order OF reference.
Both parties have excepted to the report,
and upon their exceptions the cause has been
again heard.
The master has reported what improve
ments and betterments placed on the prop
erty by defendants still remain thereon.
In arriving ut the result he made use of the
testimony OF John w. Green and Henry b.
Richardson, two experts appointed by the
court, who, in the summer and autumn of
1875, examined the railroad and made de-
tailed report OF what property Of The railroad
company was subject to the operation Of the
decree OF the court, and whit additions and
improvements had been made to the property
by the defendants during their occupar,ey
thereof and which still remained on the
road. Adopting the testimony Of these ex-
perts the master finds and reports the value.
ut the date Of his report, of the materials and
workmanship placed upon the road by the de-
PENDANTS and still remaining thereon to be
S347, SOL 20.
He also finds that Of the time the materials
were furnished and the labor performed the
cost was twenty-five per cent greater than
their value at tho present time. He therefore
reported that the amount expended by the
defendants for materials and work Tn making
the improvements and betterments which
still remained upon the road was $434, 2Ot G1.
On the question of interest on the cost of
said improvements the master reported that
assuming four and half years as nm average
time for which interest should be allowed, the
interest for that period. at five per cent,
amounted to 1914, 275 IL.
The complainants except to the report. be-
cause the. improvements having been made
by the defendants during the tendency of the
suit and after they had been charged with
appropriation of property they
were not entitled TO- and Of which fraud they
we're found guilty, they were not entitled to
compensation therefor, and because interest
was allowed on the cost Of such improve
ments.
The questions raised by these exceptions
were argued and passed upon by the court
upon the former hearing OF the cause It was
then held on the authority of the case of
Gaines VS.. New Orleans, Woods, 1914. and the
same case on appeal In 10 Wallace, ga, that
the defendants were entitled to Che value of
were made after suit brought TO recover the
property on which they were placed.
On further investigation | am unable To
find any distinction made either in the Civil
Code, or In the commentators or decisions of
the, courts between improvements made before
and improvements made after suit brought
The Civil Code, Art. 50s, makes no such dis
tinction. The fact that suit has been brought
may tend to show that the defendant was n
possessor In bad faith when he made his Inn
but that Is oil. It has already
been decided In this case, as 1t has been before
decided by the Supreme Court that the possess
sor in bad faith was entitled to the cost of his
remaining on the land. Gaines
vs.. New Orleans, Is Wallace 624.)
The same remarks apply to the second ex-
,eption. The question has been decided ad-
verse to the exception, both by this court and
she Supreme Court of the United States See
iaines vs. New Orleans, / Woods, 104 and
same case, 15 Wallace, GA; and jackson VS..
Ludeling, 2 Woods, 254. This exception,
cannot prevail.
The defendants except to the report Of the
master a. because he has adopted the esti- |
mates Of the witnesses Green and Richardson
If the value OF the materials and price of labor
n November, 1875, and in the condition of
,aid works at that date rs the basis Of his re-
BORT, whereas tho court directed him to ascer- |
ain and report the value OF the materials and |
he price OF workmanship OF the improve |
nents placed upon the road at the periods |
when they were respectively made.
The point made by this exception Is that |
he master In estimating the value Of inn |
remaining upon the road esti- |
mated that value In their deteriorated condi- |
ion, and that the defendants are entitled to |
70 allowed their cost when made and not their |
,alue In their deteriorated state This excep- |
ion appears to be well taken. The testimony |
II Green and Richardson, the experts ap- |
pointed by the court, shows that they de- |
lucted large sums from the cost of the mate
als etc, put upon the road by the defendants |
m account Of the deterioration of the same.
For instance, on page 10, exhibit B, there Is
deduction of $49,005 for deterioration of iron
ails, and said deduction appears to be carried |
nto the general summary on page IA Of same
xhibit and to be subtracted from the amount |
i the value Of the improvements made by
he defendants, although 1t is not shown nor
laimed that they placed any iron rails what
yer upon the railroad.
The next exception of the defendants is
hat the evidence does not justify the assump-
ion Of the master that the cost of the mate
ials and labor used in making the improve
nents now remaining upon the road was
My twenty-five per cent greater than their
resent value.
But two witnesses have been examined
Ipon the subject, Green and Richardson
10Th engineers and men of experience in the
obstruction OF railroads.
With the exception Of the period Of the war
nd the interval of time between December,
1873, and March, 1875-a period of fifteen
months Green had been engaged on the
Dad, either as engineer or receiver, since the
ummer Of 1858. Richardson was also EN-