The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1879-05-30

ton of the property to its original ant
normal state. 1t Is for tho use by the
defendants of these very improve
/ men.s that the coE,plainants are seek
| ing in this suit for an account of fruits
and profits of the estate.
There is series Of cases, however
in which it is held by the Supreme
Court of Louisiana that Il person with
out title going into possession of the
public lands of the United States can
not set up claim for Improvement
against the government or its grantees.
This was decided in the case of Jen-
kins VS.. Gibson, 8 An. 2O3; in Hollon
VS.. Sapp, 1 An. $40, and in Jones VS..
Wheeler, 4 An. 541. In Hollon VS..
Sapp the court says, expressly: "We
are of opinion that this article of the
Code is not applicable to materials used
and labor expended in making settle
ments upon the national domain. No
right can be acquired in relation to the
public lands except under the authori-
ty of Congress"
The case of Gibson vs.. Hutchings
(12 An, 5I5) is much relied OH by COM
plainants, and its general reasoning
docs undoubtedly overrule the doctrine
of Pcarce VS.. Franham; though, as in
jenkins VS.. Gibson, Hollon VS.. Snpp
and Jones VS.. Wheeler, the title of the
land was in the government when tho
improvements We're made. The court
says: ssThe mere possessor is presumed
to have made such changes for his own
amelioratiou, and to have received Il
sufficient reward in the immediate
benefit which he reaps from tho en-
hanced production of the soil. Per-
| haps the true owner would have pre-
ferred that the primitive forest should
remain. Perhaps the ditching will not
suit the purposes for which he wishes
to use the land.' 1t is evident from
the reasons here given that the court
regarded tho change of tho condition
and character of the land as Il natural
circumstance, and the suggestion is not
without force that the owner might
have preferred that the original timber
of the forest should not have been de-
stroyed. The present case, as already
intimated, is distinguishablc from Glib
son vs.. Hutchings and others of like
character, in that the character of the
property is not changed by the inn
provements made by the necessary
repairs.
Copious extracts from the French
law on the subject, which the court
states is the same as the law of LOUISE
ana, follows, and the court then pro-
CCeOS 10 OlSpOSe Oh Vuc Quiet k)lrtS, anu
on them ruled as follows:
The defendants can only recover for
the value of the improvements rs they
stood when the road was turned over
| to the receiver in 1875, and the amount,
$3i7 1861 30, at which they were ap.
praised by the experts, is found by the
court to be correct.
The court finds the interest for four
and a half years at per cent, to which
the defendants are entitled, to be $685.
721 4S, to be credited against the net
earnings for which the defendants are
held responsible. "Thesc net earnings
were found to be $161, 476 60, and de-
Quoting said interest therefrom the
remainder is $52,7 ,755 2l, which is
to be deducted from the value
of the improvements. Being so de-
Quoted, the balance is 1924, ,606 Os,"
which the court DEGREES must be paid
with interest from the date of the de-
livery to the receiver, out of the pro-
ceeds of sale Of the road, before any
payments are made to the bondholdcrs.
"A lien for costs, etc, is allowed.