Huntsville gazette., 1889-05-18
AN OLD CASE SETTLED.

AN OLD CASE SETTLED.
judgment of the Supreme Court of the
united States In the Case of the Heirs
/ OF Myra a'Clark Gaines VS. the City of New
orleans on Appeal by the Latter from
the Decree of the Lower Court.
| WASHINGTON, May 14.-The Supreme
Court OF the United States yesterday
rendered a decision in the case of the
city OF New Orleans, appellant, VS.. Jas.
V. Christmas and Hattie l.. Whitney. adj
ministrator and administratrix of Myra
Clark Gaines, deceased. Myra CLARK
Gaines filed bill against the city of New
Orleans to recover the amount with in
terest of the fruits, revenue and value for
use of certain lands in the city of New
Orleans, containing about 135 arpents,
which she had recovered from various
| persons claiming title under the CITY,
The charge was that the city was liable as
grantor as we'll as guarantor of the title,
and ought to respond for all the rents
and revenues actually received by itself
or its grantees or which might have been
received by a judicious and provident use
OF the property. The bill was filed Au-
gust I, 1872 and on May s. 1888, decree
81 1,925, $50, with interest on $780, $50 from
January 10, 1881. From that decree an
appeal was taken. The master, in making
up the accounts in the case, charged
the city with the entire rents and
March 49, 1887, to the time
OF making his report, without regard to
the question wheth the city or it's
/ in
The revenues thus charged on unim-
proved land were fictitious revenues as
sessed at the rate of five per cent. per
annum on seventy per cent Of inflated
sales made in 1887. The court afterward
added to this, interest on the other thirty
per cent. Of the amount of the sales. The
amounts found due from the grantees
having possession of improved property
aggregated 1915, 70S. The Supreme Court
holds that the city of New Orleans is not
primarily liable for the revenues of the
entire tract for the time when it had pos :
session and for the time when its grantees
had possession. The only plausible
ground on which the city can be made
responsible for the rents and revenues
received by its grantees, the court holds,
is that of subrogation, by which the real
owner, after pursuing the grantee in pos
session and reducing the demand to judg-
ments, may take the place of the grantee
and possessor in suing the grantor who
is the grantees surety. In this case
| judgment has been obtained against
the grantees, the city was sufficient
| ly notified, and, in fact, practic-
| ally conducted the defense; and
the grantees have called on the city to
| Al l., o r ,a.o
vides that person evicted may recover
from the warrantor Of the property, value
rents and revenues for which he must ac-
count to the true owner. Under these
| conditions, the court holds that Mrs.
Gaines might be subrogated to the
grantee, and might, therefore, maintain a
suit against the city. Without deciding
the case on this equitable ground alone,
the court holds that the law gives this
authority in an article declaring thai
creditors may exercise the rights and ac-
tions of their debtors. The court, there
fore, DEGREES that this part Of the decree
Of the lower court, amounting to 1857, 70S,
ought to be allowed, subject to reduction
for certain causes.
AS to the remainder Of the decree,
amounting to 81, 1,34S,960, for rents and rev.
| enueS and "yalue for use" OF the un1m-
| proved land, the court can not concur IL
the decision of the Circuit Court. This
sum, the court says, was made up in too
| unreliable manner. The city got no
revenue from this property, and the est
| mate of the revenue was made on false
| and inflated values. 1t was claimed that
the possessor in bad faith was liable for
| all that might have been done to the
property. The court holds that it does
not follow that because small parts OF
suburban property have been made val
liable all of it can be improved. Another
error, the court says, lies in the claim
that the possessor is liable for all the
property might have produced. The
court does not understand that the pos
SCISSOR is bound to change the state of the
land, and he can not be held liable for the
value of the thousands of bushels Of
grain that wild land might have produced
if it had been improved and cultivated.
The decree is reversed with instruc-
tions to the lower court to render de-
cree in accordance with these conclu
sions. The Chief Justice and Justice
Lamar, who were not on the bench wher
the case was argued, took no part in its
consideration.