The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-05-21
THE GREAT RAILROAD CASE.
Synopsis Of the Decision Of tho supreme
Court Of tho United States

yIcksburg, Shreveport and Texas Railroad
Company ct al.
Henry II jackson ct 81. va the vinksbure
shreveport and Texas Railroad COMPANY a
al Appeal from The Circuit Court IT he Unted
| States for the District Of Louisiana.
SYLLABUS oF DECISION.
In Louisiana, where railroad In n state pi
complete iilandation and ruin was sold Under
Il mortgage. under circumstances importing
some fraud 20 the purchasers which Induced
eala, such purchasers, though deemed possess
nrs In bad faith are entitled by the sririt Of ar
trla Goa " the Own Code To compensation for
rneonetruetina and repairing the road and put
| thug II IN working order
| Whatever question may exist about npmpen-
saisa ,or infnsa q lnaepatahe amsi,esa
| IN bad faith, there ts no question about his
right TO he reimbursed for necessarily repairs,
aa1lth article ri The OWL tloda VI Louisiana.
Il seems to be held IN Louisiana contrary to
former deftsigns. that compensation VIII nut
be allowed to the possessor in bad faith 70, IN
sapafable improvements 10 land. such ~ clear,
Ing and ditching but the reeonstruetien aud
putting ~ working order OF ratlroah. th or,
restoring II tp its normal condition. partahna 80
much 81 tho nature nf repairs that nompehsa-
ton therefor 4 renired ty ~ la1la1ahle con
The rule Of compensation In such . case ts 70
allow credit tn the posaasanra for me. value 81
tho mater ias of the imprIveemnnts YET tn exist
anne aud The eost Of the labor bestowed thare-
on but not for improvements which have been
nonsnnlel In the use ana not to exceed the value
Of the improvements when Delivered up In
tarrst IN tha outlay WI the Vaaaesaors Will also
he allowed to nm amount not exceeding the net
earnings, or frul's, received from the improye-
manta They will be accountable, however. for
aj the fruits received by them from the prop
eriy.
lJnaara Whether they would be accountable
for the fruits Of the improvements beyond the
allowance made To them thereforl
For any balance found to be due them on such
an accounting, the possessora Will have lien
Mr. Justice bradley delivered the opinion of
the court.
This cass arises out Or tho supplementary
Jackson et al. w. the Vinkahurg. Shreveport
% Jackson Vs.. Tudelins, IN 81 Wallaeeo siel
the mandate IN tbat, case the Circuit COURT for
The District of Louisiana made further e. d.
p he .rar qas d ls1
tho writ OF injunction directed by the decree cree
issue to the PARTIES to the deed OF the Nth OF
and his associates, and to all the defendants III
this cause.
recital Of that decree and case which is
familiar to every one. follows and continuing,
tho opinion states the ground Of appeal from
the decree which was taken by both parties
to be as follows
On the part OF plaintiffs First, there should
BIO no allowance to defendants by the lower
court for amelioraton or improvements; seq
pnd. tho allowances IL too great. and third, no
Interest On the amount allowed should be ad-
judged.
On the part or defendants First, tho allow
aDce FOR the improvements Is insufficient;
second, there was no allowance for Improve
ments worn out In service; third, the interest
Ia Insufficient. fourth, there is no allowance
for salaries: fifth, the defendants are de-
barred the right 10 retain possession Of the
..ytt tlX.fr
the amount Of the earnings of the road Is in
correctly stated
On the first point. regarding tho right 81
defendants TO restitution for moneys ex-
pended IN necessary repairs and improve
ments on the road. the court held that they
were entitled tn their actual value, and, con-
tinung on this point, said.
Tho improvements IN this case were clear
ings, levees and bitches, without which the
land could not have been brought Into cultl-
walton so IA W yield tho rents and profits
which the plaintiff now claims.
If the supreme Court Of Louisiana was cor
rect In this case In holding that tho ameliora-
tiOns made by the defendants were necessary
taking into view the fact that
the character of the property was changed
thereby from ita original condition. then
much more tn the present case the improve
menta effected by the defendants are to be
regarded as necessary. resulting as they did
IN the restoration of the property to its origi-
nal and normal state. II IL for tho use by the
defendants Of these very improvements that
the conplainants arc seeking In this suit for
mn account OF fruits and profits OF the estate. |
There is q series ct cases. however, in
which " Is held Ivy tho Supreme Court W
Louisiana. that n person without title going
into possession Of the public lands Of tho |
United States cannot set UP d claim for I'M
provamrnt against the government or it's
grantees. This was decided IN the case VI
Jenkins vs.. Gibson. 3 An. 209 IN Hellon VS..
Sapp, An, 5la, and III Jones w. Wheeler.
4 An, btl. In Hollan Va. Sapp tho court
says. expressly: I'VE are of opinion that
this article of tho Code Ia not applicable to
materials used and labor expended In making
settlements upon tho national domain M
right can bo acquired IN relation to tho pub
ltr lands except under tho authority Of Con
grCaa'
The case of Gibson VS.. IIu'ehings az An,
5I5l is much rolled un by rpmplanants, and
Ito general reasoning dnns undoubtedly over
rule tho doctrine of Pcarrs VS. Franham /
though, as IN Jenkins VS.. Gibson. Holon Vs. |
Snpp md Jones w. Wheeler the title of the
lana was III the government when the iii |
provements were made. The court says
" HIS mere npssasspr III presumed To have
made such changes for his own amelioration,
and 10 have received 4 sufficient reward i'm
The Immediate benefit which he reaps from
The enhanced production of the soil Perhaps
the true owner would havn preferred that tho
primitive forest should remain. Perhaps the |
will not suit the purposes fpr which |
he wishes to usH the land II Is evident from |
The reasons here given that the court regard |
III the change of tho condition ana character /
If the land rs a natural circumstances ana |
Tho suggestion Ia not without force that the
'wner might have preferred that the original |
timber of tho forest should not have been de-
stroyea. The present case, M already init
mated, Ii dstingnishable from Gibson w. /
and others of like character, In
hat the character of the property Is not T
changed by the improvements made by the
necessary repairs.
Cupioua extracts from the French law on
,hc subject. which tile court states Is this
iatne as tho law of Louisiana, follows, and |
ho court then proceeds To dispose of the
'ther parts, aud on them ruled as follows
The defendants ran only recover for the
talue OF the improvements as they stood
when the road was turned over to the re-
tiver In 1915. and the amount S34T 361 ~, at
which they We're appraised by the experts, is
ound by the court tn ha correct.
The court finds the interest for four and
lalf years at per cent. To which the defend
nts arc entitled. to bs Sloa. 12l IL. To he cred
ted against the net earnings for which the
etrndants are held responsible These net