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

Inc lOllOWlnS Is Iull Synopsis Ol
the opinion of the Supreme Court OF
the celebrated railroad case of Henry
r. Jackson ct al. VS.. the Vicksburg,
Shreveport and Texas Railroad Com
pany ct al:
Henry II. Jackson ct III. VS.. the
| Vicksburg, Shreveport and Texas Rail
road Company ct al.-Appeal from the
! Circuit Court of the United States for
the District of Louisiana.
SYLLABUS OF DECISION.
In Louisiana, where railroad in /,
state of complete dilapidation and ruin
was sold under a mortgage, under cir
cumstances importing some fraud in
the purchasers which induced the court
to set the sale aside and order a resale,
such purchasers, though deemed pos
SCISSORS in bad faith, are entitled by the
spirit of article sos of the Civil Code to
compensation for reconstructing and
repairing the road and putting it in
working order.
| Whatever question may exist about
compensation for intrinsic or insepara-
BILE ameliorations and improvements
made by a possessor in bad faith, there
is no question about his right to be re-
imbursed for necessary repairs, both
| uSSOAuAAS ~ IA0 6CAOAuA CIVIL Jaw dIlN
the 2314th article of the Civil Code OF
Louisiana.
| 1t seems to be held in Louisiana,
contrary to former decisions, that COM
pensation will not be allowed to the
possessor in bad faith for inseparable
Improvements to land, sucl. as clearing
and ditching; but the reconstruction
and putting in working order of rail-
road, thereby restoring it to its normal
condition, partakes SO much of the ma
ture ofrepairs that compensation there
for is required by an equitable con-
struction of article sos of the Civil
Code.
The rule Of compensation in such a
case is to allow credit to the possessors
for the value of the materials of the
Improvements yet in existence, and
the cost of the labor bestowed thereon,
but not for improvements which have
been consumed in the use and not to
! exceed the value of the improvements
when delivered up. Interest on the
outlay of the possessors will also be
allowed to an amount not exceeding
the net earnings, or fruits, received
from the improvements. They will be
accountable, however, for all the fruits
received by them from the property.
[Quaere. Whether they would be
accountable for the fruits of the inn
provements beyond the allowance made
to them therefor.
For any balance found to be due
them on such an accounting, the pos
SCISSORS will have a lien on the prop
erty.
Mr.. Justice Bradley delivered the
opinion OF the court.
+ This case arises out Of the supple
1nentary proceedings which took place
in the case of jackson ct al. VS.. the
Vicksburg, Shreveport and Texas Rail
road Company ct al. (reported as Jack
son VS.. Ludeling, in 81 Wallace, 616)
after our decision therein. In pursu-
ance of the mandate in that case, the
Circuit Court for the District Of Louisi-
ana made a further decree on the
twenty-second day of March, 1875.
2. 1t is further adjudged and decreed
that the writ of injunction directed by
the decree issue to the parties to the
deed of the fifth of February, 1866, OK
ecuted to John Il. Ludeling and his
associates, and to all the defendants in
this cause.
A recital OF that decree and case,
which is familiar to every one, follows,
and continuing, the opinion states the
ground of fappeal from the decree which
was taken by both parties to be as
follows:
On the part of plaintiffs-First, there
should be no allowance to defendants
by the lower court for amclioration or
improvements; second, the allowance
is too great; and third, no interest on
the amount allowed should be adj
Judged.
On the part Of detcndants-F'irst,t the
allowance for the Improvements is in
sufficient; second, there was no allow |
ancc for improvements worn out in
service; third, the interest is INSULT
cicnt; fourth, there is no allowance for
salaries; fifth, the defendants are de-
barred the right to retain possession OF
the property until their allowance is
paid; sixth, the amount of the earnings
of the road is incorrectly stated.
On the first point, regarding the
right of defendants to restitution for
moneys expended in necessary repairs
and improvements on the road, the
court held that they were entitled to
their actual value, and, continuing on
this point, said:
The improvements in this case were
i /