The Springdale news., 1889-05-17
AN OLD CASE SETTLED.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of tho
 United States in tho Case of the Heirs
 of Myra 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, ad- 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 it's grantees or which might have been received by iudicious and provident use of tho property. Tho bill was filed Au- gust ', 1879. and on May ,, 1883, decree was rendered in favor of Mrs. Gaines for 1925. .G60, with interest on S950, 150 from January 10, 1881. From that decree an appeal was taken. Tle master, i'll making up the accounts in the case charged the city with the entire rents and revenues of all the land from March 19, 1887, to the time of making his report, without regard to the question whether tho city or Us grantees were in actual possession or not. The revenues thus charged on unlm- proved land were fictitious revenues aS- sessed at the rate of five per cent per annum on seventy per cent or lnnaVea sales made in 1857. The court aftefwafd added to this, interest on the other thlrty per cent. of the amount of the sales me amounts found due from the grantees having possession of improved property aggregated &576, 70S. The Supreme Court holds that the city of New Orleans IS not primarily liable for the revenues et the entire tract for the time when it had pos session and for the time when it's 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 tho grantee in pos session and reducing the demand to julg ments, may take the place of the granite and pOssessor in suing the grautor who is the grantees surety. In this case judgment has been obtained against the grantees, the city was sufficient ly notified and, in fact, practice ally conducted the defense; and the grantees have called on the city to protect them. The law of Louisiana pro- vides that a person eviCted may recover from the warrantor of the property, rents and revenues for which he must ac- count to the true owner. Under these conditions. the court holds that Mrs. Gaines might be subrogatcd to the grantee, and might, therefore, maintain 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 that creditors may exercise the rights and ac- tions of their debtors. The court, there fore, decrees that this part of the deere of the lower court, amounting to S361, IOS ought to be allowed, subject to reductio
 for certain causes.
 As to the remainder of the decree, amounting to St, ,3S, 969, for rents and rev.
 enues and ''yalue for use" of the unlm- proved land, the court can not concur in the decision of the Circuit Court. This sum, the court says, was nldue up III lOO unreliable a manner. The city got no revenue from this property, and the esti- mate of the revenue was made on false and inflated values. It was claimed that the possessor in bad faith was liable for all that might nave been done to tho property. The court holds that it does not follow that because small parts ot suburban property have been made val uable 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 prG1grSed. Tho court does not understand that the pos sessor is bound to change the state of Inc 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 iustruc-
 tions to the lower court to render de- cree in accordance with these conclu- sions. Tho Chief Justice and Justice Lamar, who were not on the bench when the case was argued, took no part :1Nits consideration