New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-05-14
i FAMOUS WILL CAsEENDED
THE HEIRS OF MYRA CLARK GAINES sue
CESSFUL, AFTER LONG LITIGATION.
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW:
ORLEANS FOR OVER HALF MILLION
DOLLARS GIVEN IN THEIR FAVOR
BY THE SUPREME COURT.

ORLEANS FOR OVER HALF MILLION
DOLLARS GIVEN IN THEIR FAVOR
BY THE SUPREME COURT.
yasninetonz May 13.-The Supreme Court Of the
Un,td states to-day rendered what is believed to be
nnsl decision in the famous case of the city Of New
oryesns, appellant against Hattie L. Whitney, ad'
yniuisratrx Of tho estate Of Myra Clark Gaines de-
ceased The case came up appeal from the Circuit
Court Of the United States for the Eastern District OF
Louisiana, and argued at the October term OF
the Supreme Court, in 1885, The decision today IL
Is thought ends what probably has been the most
interesting the hardest contested and the most pro-
Hanged known TO the judicial history of this country
The case had then been before the supreme Coul'
i've times, In one form another, ana has no" poo1
decided as many times again.
Tho frst suit was brought by Mrs. Gaines uhen tno
wife Of General whitney, in 1884, and since .nS' o
decision has followed decision In regard 10 H. An
first suit sought to recover what was kno"n % .e
Eyariste Blanc tract In Neworleans Biahc oouBnt
the tract for about "a 500 from the executors Oh
General Daniel Clark, a prominent ciulen Vi H
Orleans He sold It and some other lana 10 INC
CITY Of Esw.orleans for $4,000, ana 'n0 cry 'uO
divided the tract and sold 1t to numoer VI PiS0"
for between $500 900 and S7oo,ooo agreeing " uo'
f.nd all questions OF tite Mrs. Gaines having ie"
.s 80 claimed H. The grounds on which
Ms Gaines set I'D her claims were that she was
,ha child Of General Clark by secret marriage oe'
tween him and Zuline Carriere, woman wen Ano""
In the city, and that General Clarh hao ielV ie,
win than the one under which the property was sou
rh,s .ecre, marriage formed the axis on which the
utjoat,on reyoyed, and the case was tOught WIN
bitterness on both Sides 1t was not until few years
49,. IN. war that Mrs. Gaines was finally declared
~ hs Tho legitimate child well as the lawful heir OF
c,ner,I clark Even then the city Of New-orleans
did not surrender, and after the war Mrs Gaines was
.omneued 10 bring suit for damages. In 1881 the
GNoYa5 n
Iou,Iana District gave Judgment in her favor for
a, eos s67 and II Is on appeal from this Judgment
49,. 40 naHo to-day was decided. The present case
h.sts all the resources of the law and Is regarded
AZ final settlement Of the litigation Mrs. Games
Tho fought TO the last for her rights, is dead and
"a Is believed all her immediate relatives except
her law HATTIE l. Whitney, in whose name
as enthusiastically of the estate Of Mrs Gaines the case
stands on the court docket
Tho award of 81 ,o25, G67 SO, made to Mrs. Gaines
by the Circuit Court, made up OF two parts.
The first part was for the amount Of $5Ie,7o7 b.
which represents with interest Judgments ootaned
by Mrs Gaines in suits brought by her against over
four hundred persons who occupied the improved paO
of the estate sold by tho city. Tho court, in It's
op,nien allows Mrs Gaines this amount with interest
ct per cent from 1891, the date the Judgment was
awarded by the lower court The second part OF the
Judgment was for 81 34s ESQ OIL and was based on an
estimate Of what tho uDimproved part OF the estate
would have yielded II iudiciolSly looked after Inc
Master who made up the judgment took the price
the unirnproved ground sold for in 1897, when
real estate craze prevailed IN Neworeans and com
putting interest At per cent, with interest
On interest found that this amount should be allowed
rs the revenues that sAoud have been received from
the unimproved part of the estate
The Supreme Court disallows this award Of
81 ,34s950 OIL, On the ground that 1t was based on
false principles The court in its opinion first takes
A. IiaNy M he
the complainant for revenues from the property sold
It SAYS the only plausible ground which The city
can be made responsible for the rents and revenues
received by It's grantees is that OF suorogaton'
The court therefore, holds that this part OF
tho decree, amounting TO the sum of sS76,7o7 90,
ought to be allowed unless subject to reduction for
the cause hereafter referred TO.
As TO the remainder Of the decree, amounting to
81 34S $50 Ell, being for rents aud revenues and
g yalno for uscS tho Master calls IL, of the IN
proved Hand me court cannot concur Ia the 90
esion Of tho Circuit Court 1t thinks that sum Is
made up by a method entirely too unsafe. 1t being
conceded that city It's grantees actually derived
no rents revenues at all from the property, the
former Is charged, aStead, with interest Tor years
on a false ana minated valuation based the sales
OF 1887 which were never carried and never
could be, In addition with interest upUn that IN
terest IL seems says the court, enormous charge
Inc land was a waste and much oI 1t a swamp. II
probably would have had any hSelal NaIue
bud Tor tie draining opeI4uons carried on by the
city The court also says 1t does not occur IN the
opinion that q pOSseSSor in bad faith Is bound 10
respond for all that the property possessed can be
manc TO produce. large tract OF land mostly
forest might by cultivation be Lnad5 10 produce I'M
mease Yields Of grain and produce II cleared ana
broken up Is the posseSsor in bad faith bound u
respond 10 TIE owner for thousands OF bushels
of wheat and that might have been raised on
the landl Tbs estimation OF such undeVeloped
revenues the court holds, Is altogether too speculative
In the Judgment Of the there wss no sufficient
evidence that any rents revenues were derived from
unmproved lands and that part OF the decroo amount
inc 10 n 34s 800 81 IL therefore disallowed.
AS 10 the residue amounting 10 S576,'OI W founded
IN iudxments recovered against persons In possession
Of yarous portions Of tho property, the court says
that while those persons would have been proper
paytes 10 the suit IN order that It might DO SHOWN
mat tbe sums recovered against Them had not Deen
released or compromised for less than the fsce OF
the judgments yet II would be great hardship on
ali the parties concerned 10 have to begin this lngA
tion over again, the court thinks that the sum OF
e57s 7o7 9s should be allowed directly against the
siy with nterest thereon provided In the decree
of the Circuit Court subject, bOWeVef 10 TIE guam,
cation at II the city show that any OF me sac
judgments have been compromised ana Eetued TOT
npy less sums thar the face thereof with Interest," tbe
city shall be entitled TO the benefit OF corresponding
reduction In the decree -,
The case is therefore, reversed and remsnded with
directions 10 enter new decree In accordance Win
the decision Of this court
Justice Bradley rendered the decision OF the conrt:
which wss unanimous. Justice Lamar and Chief
Justice Fuller were not members Of he court At the
time the case argued and took no part In the
decision.