The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-06
THE GAINES CASE.

The recent decision OF Judge Billings
in the case Of Mrs. Myra Clark Gaines
vs.. various defendants, is one of i'm
mense Importance, not only to the parties
litlgant In this suit, but to all other persons
concerned In controversies before our courts
In which similar questions of law are in
volyed-not that there is anything novel in
the decision, but on account Of the great in
terests affected by 1t and the numerous indi-
viduals Immediately concerned.
We have not hitherto left our readers in
ignorance of tho far-reaching character Of
the DEGREES Of the highest Federal court In
favor Of Mrs. Gaines. When that court de-
cided at tho October term OF 1875 that her ap.
| plication to the probate court Of this parish
! for the transfer OF the suit of Fuentes and
others to the United States Circuit Court was
| wrOngfully refused, and ordered that the cause
be transferred, note Of warning was sounded
In our columns. (The suit Of Fuentes and
others was one having for its object to annul
the probate of Daniel Clark's will OF 1873
under which Mr.. Gaines claims.) And again
in March, 1876, 1t was stated in the DEMO
Graf that the best legal minds In New Or
leans regarded the means OF opposition to
Mrs. Gaines rs substantially exhausted
The principles Of law governing the case
and securing to Mrs. Gaines all she
claimed as her Inheritance and the fruits
thereof had been settled many years
before In the cases OF Gaines vs.. Hennen, "a
Howard 6l5, and Gaines vs. New Orleans, 6
Wallace 42, and we felt that the suit of
Fuentes and others to annul the will, upon
grounds which had been examined and re-
iected as insufficient by the highest court In
this country, must prove abortive to the
plaintiffs What remained to be done after
the DEGREES In these cases had become final
was merely the surrender Of the properties
counts between herself and her opponents rel
atvo to the rents and revenue which had
accrued to the latter, and relative to the
necessary expenditures they had incurred in
preserving the properties.
These matters had to be referred to differ
ent masters In chancery for examination and
adjustment Much testimony as to values,
etc, had to be taken. This involved much
time and labor, and 1t appears that
these masters were unable to
agree as to the principles Of law
which should govern in the adjustment of
the contradictory claims Of complainant and
defendants. One OF them-Mr. Gurley-re-
ported to the court that although "the de-
PENDANTS are to account as possessors in bad
faith" yet that, in his opinion, "the Supreme
Court Of Louisiana had recognized and acted
on a clear distinction between such possess
ors in bad faith as hold the property OF an
other without any title, or evidence of title,
and without the payment Of any cOnsdera-
ton, and those who hold under title trans
latve OF property. and who have paid there
for valuable consideration" Mr.. Gurley |
therefore, treats the defendants as negotio,unn
gestOres unauthorized managers of another's
and not as possessors in bad faith
with knowledge OF the vicousness of their
title
This opinion Of Master Gurley has been re-
iected by Judge Billings In these words:
The distinction which has been urged be-
tween the possesors who hold with AMI tn ,se |
who hold without paper title. cannot be ac-
bad faith into. different classes. and this |
court has no right go to do; nor can any good
BE- Te o With
than those who. as In these cases. possessed bv
a title. which they are adjudged to have known
to be fraudulent and void.
On the several questions involved in the
settlement Of the accounts, Master Gurley
states his rulings and the reasons therefor as
follows:
AS TO THE IMPROVEMENTS.
In the instances In which Mrs. Gaines &C.
cepts the improvements. she has been charged
with the cost Of tn, latter because her accept
ance Is regarded as ratification of the acts OF
the pcssessor and a recognition Of ha agency
She Is regarded as having ordered the improve
ments.
Judge Billings also rejects this portion of
the report. He confines the allowance to de-
PENDANTS to expenses necessarily incurred by |
til EN-.
AS TO THE RENTS OF THE PROPERTIES.
Master Gurley reported as to this part OF |
the matter referred to him as follows:
The defendants have been charged. as Or
dered by the decree. with the yearly rents, |
profits. or value for use Of the property. from
the time 1t came into their possession, wi h |
legal interest thereon. In cases in which they !
nave themselves occupied the property. they |
nearly as 1t could be ascertained. with legal in
terest. For such lime a. the property remained
not rented and unoccup ed. or occupied by a
person from whom no rent could BIZ collected.
and for such time as defendants were unable to
rent IT, and permitted a tenant to livs on 1t rent
free In consideration I aking care of It, they
have not been CHARGED with rents as none were
received, or with value Tor use, as no use was
made of 1t and no profit was derived rom it.
This ruling has likewise Jailed to receive the
approval of Judge Billings, who holds the
law to be as follows:
The defendants must. in accordance with the
very textual provisions OF the law. restof all
the products OF the property which they have
possessed. They are also liable for the products
good management In Winter VS.
Zacharie. Robinson 467. the doctrine is laid
down In express terms that the possessor in
which he has received. but the fruits which.
with ordinary good management. he ought to
have received. This is the settled law OF Louis
lana at the present time.
With regard to the unimproved pro-
perry in possession Of the defendants,
the master was OF opinion and so re-
ported that in cases where the land had not
been improved or occupied or used, and where
had derived no profit from their
possession, they were not chargeable with
rent In reviewing this opinion, it seems,