The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-03-28
THE COURTS.
THE GAINES CASE.
United states Circuit Court, Filth Cir
CULT District of Louisiana.

Bi.lings,J.
have experienced 81 difficulty as to, the princi-
piles which should govern them in their assess
ment OF the amounts tor which ne mpla1n-
best to lay down the principles OF law that are
apt licahle to these causes. and In aeeordance
With which The amounts of the complainant's
judgmsnts against the several defendants will
First As to the character and legal status OF
the pos ession on the part OF these various de-
Civil Code, article 500. declares that the pro-
ducts OF the thing DO not belong to the simple 7.
to the owner who claims the same. unless the
possessor held it bona fde
Were the defendants possessors In good faithP
AS / have alre dy remarked In giving my
opinion upon these cases. the character of the
possession OF the defendants rests upon pre-
cisely the same facts as did that OF the defendant
6i6 and the nature of the poss ession here is in
C pable 10 be distinguished from that Of the
poser sion there.
States in their decree adjudged that such de-
PENDANTS ought TO be decreed and held to have
purchased the property in question. with full
notice that the sale at auction, under the pre-
tended au h ..rity, of Richard Relf and Beverly
Chew was illegal. null and void.
article sos of The Civil Code declares that he is
a bona fde DOS essor who posst sses by virtue
erty, the detects of ,rhch he ,ras ignorant. He
ceases to be q bona fde possessor from the mo-
nent these detects are ma le kpo,nn to him.
Tho who do not fall within this category
were possessors in bad faith.
fai by the very terms Of the decree above re-
ferred to. Their good or bad faith is no longer
an open question in ibis court The mala fdes
is as much part OF the Judgment as any other
part OF it, and IL would be as unreasonable to
insist that his court should consider anew any
of the propositions of law laid down by the
court in that decision as to ask that this par
ticu,,ar portion OF their decree should be disre
garded.
A,fc, ,1r T.
ance with the very textual provisions OF the
law, restore all the products of the property
which they have possessed. They are also, liza
BILE for the produc which they ought to have
rallied " with ordinary good management
TBS IN bad fat Is not held to the
family. Winter vs. Zacharie. Robinson ACT:
This was case In which the defendant had
go to The ae yeb
he received. but those which he could have re-
eeived with ordinary husbandry; and the doe
posses-or in bad faith must not only restore the
fruits which he has received, but the fruits which,
with ordinary, good management, he ought to
the first instance after a thorough argument. and
an elaborate opinion was written.
Upon rehearing the court reiterated their
to the present time.
There is no reason why the complainant
damases s ess She Is m
titled. under her claim for revenues, to the pro-
ducts which the defendants have suffered to be
might have realized them with ordinary care
and skill as she is entitled to those products
which they had actually realized and appro-
To prevent multiplicity of suits, she is
allowed to cumulate with her action for the re-
coyery OF the thing. her claim for the fruits.
1t must be that in such q claim she can assert
her right. to the fruits which in fairness ought
to have been realized, as well as she can to
those which. were realized.
The pleadings in this case on the part Of The
defendants do not set up any claim to- Offsets.
put the the he h9 baoze
the masters should be upon such basis as
would secure to the defendants all the offsets
which,, under the laws OF Louisiana, they
table rule it will accord to the complainant the
right to assert her claim for all the fruits, real
lied or unrealized. which she has right to, &C
are techoicaIly called damages, or by some
other name, SO long as they spring out OF the
or fy the Of
which, with its revenues. these suits were
brought.
The question has been raised in the reports
oes a9 as appg To ali %
proved or unimprovsd She is not entitled to
recovery for the revshu which might, BY the
possessor: on the other hand she is entitled to
all the income, revenues, profits and value for
use or occupation, which the evidence esIab.
derived. whether the possessor has real
lied them or not and whether the failure
On bis pa TO F1az asal them ub aesnary nn ms
dence. or from the estate remaining unproduc-
tive by reason of the title thereto being IN dis.
pute on account of a claim Of til le on the part
Of the rossessor now adjudged to have been un-
founded.
The proof must establish that, If she had been
left un1isturbed in the possession OF this
rvrhf 1h ohn huO mo- Efy
ordinary good management, she would have
caused the property to produce the incomes
Of are 90 es jG Of o
inson a. winter vs. zacharie It was held to be. ''
Ia the next place. what offsets or. OUTLAWS are
are ether nsef or m 10
not claimed that the defendants are entitled to
any OUTLAWS which they have made merely for
possessor in bad laith entitled TO be reimbursed
for useful expenditures? that is for expenses
that were merely useful In contradistinction to
those which were necessary
AS o general rule, certainly not. No one has
a right to engage in the improvement OF prop
erty which he knows las these defendants we're
and take the chances OF the outlay accrulng to
his benefit. as though made upon property Of
ousted from his unlawful possession;
He who invests money under, such circum-
stances does a. his peril. The real owner
ought to be- required to hold him harmless
Herriott vs. Broussard. N. =. 26s.
The distinction which has been urged
between the possessors who hold with,
ard those who hold yTithog4nt 9 paper
not divide D assessors In bad faith into different
classes, and this court has no rgnt SO to do;
nor can any good reason be urged why one who
possesses without tile should betreated more
uptavc alb than those who. as in these cases,
possessed by q title which they are adjudgsd
to have known to be fraudulent and void. Both
the first and thu last are pos -essors without
title, in the ordinary legal and statutory ae-
eeptation Of that term. such possessoTs ought