New Orleans v. Gaines

• Decision Date: 01 December 1872
• Citation: 21 L.Ed. 215,82 U.S. 624,15 Wall. 624
• Parties: NEW ORLEANS v. GAINES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

82 U.S. 624

21 L.Ed. 215

15 Wall. 624

NEW ORLEANS v. GAINES.

December Term, 1872

APPEAL from a decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana; the case being thus:

In the year 1856 Mrs. Myra Clark Gaines filed a bill in the court below against the city of New Orleans, in which she sought to recover valuable real estate in New Orleans owned by one Daniel Clark, including a certain block or square described, on which a draining-house and out-buildings, with a draining-machine for draining the city, was now and had been for many years situated.

The bill alleged that she was the only and legitimate child of Clark; that Clark had left a valid will, made in 1813, by which he devised all his estate to her; that this will having been lost or destroyed, and she a minor till 1827 and ignorant of her parentage and rights, a provisional will, dated in 1811, of which Richard Relf and Beverly Chew were executors, and Clark's mother, Mary Clark, was universal legatee, was admitted to probate and ordered to be executed; that the will of 1813, which revoked the will of 1811, was subsequently found, and, in 1856, established; that Relf and Chew, under pretended authority as executors of Clark and as attorneys in fact of his mother, had, in 1821, without right or authority, and in bad faith, sold this lot and others at public auction to one Evariste Blanc; that Blanc, equally without right or authority, and in bad faith, had sold it and others, by act of sale, on the 26th of September, 1834, to the city of New Orleans; that the city had notice of the fraudulent character of the proceedings of Relf and Chew, & c., and of the worthlessness of the title, &c., which they acquired. The bill prayed a delivery of the property and an account of the rents and profits.

After a long and expensive litigation, including an appeal to this court, Mrs. Gaines succeeded in her case,¹ and in pursuance of a mandate from this court, the court below, in June, 1870, entered a decree in her favor; decreeding that she was Clark's only legitimate child, and as his universal legatee was entitled to the lots in question; that the sale by Relf and Chew and that also by Evariste Blanc was wholly unauthorized and illegal, and utterly null and void; and that the city of New Orleans at the time it purchased the property was bound to take notice of the circumstances which rendered the actings and doings of Chew and Relf in the premises utterly null and void, and 'ought to be deemed and held, and was thereby deemed and held, to have purchased the property in question with full notice that the sale at auction, under the pretended authority of the said Richard Relf and Beverly Chew, and the said act of sale to the said Evariste Blanc were unauthorized, illegal, null, and void, and in derogation and fraud of the persons entitled to the succession of Daniel Clark. The court further decreed that Mrs. Gaines, as Clark's only and legitimate child and universal legatee, was entitled to the property with all the yearly rents and profits accruing from it since it came into possession of the city, on the 26th of September, 1834, and decreeing an account accordingly, referred it to the master to take the same.

The master reported that the city had never rented the lot on which the draining-house and machinery was built, nor received from it any rents or profits except by an increase of the city revenue, brought about by the fact that the draining-machine had drained a large part of the city, and by making it of use had largely augmented the property in the city that was taxed. While, therefore, he 'found it difficult to fix the amount of rents and profits for which the city was liable on this lot,' he presented certain facts and figures from which the court could reach an equitable result. These were thus: The city, it was estimated, had received from increased taxation of other property, during the term embraced by the order (including interest), $208,825.

Now, this particular lot of land, it was testified, was originally worth $200. The buildings erected by the city, independent of the machinery, cost $18,000. The putting up of the machinery was finished July 1st, 1835 or 1836 (some witnesses testifying to the one year and some to the other), and it was testified that a fair rental of the land and building was $2400 a year. The expense of repairs was $500.

The master, accordingly—disallowing to the city the benefit of the 'prescription of three years,' which it set up against the claim for rents—charged the city on this basis:

Rental value from July 1st, 1835, to

November 1st, 1870,..... $84,800 00

Interest on the rents, at five per cent.,. 72,800 00

--------- $157,600 00

And allowed the city:

Expenses of repairs,..... $17,166 66

Interest on repairs,...... 15,166 55

--------- 32,333 21

---------

And thus made the city chargeable with

the difference,....... $125,266 79

On exceptions to his report, one of them was that as the draining-machine and buildings necessary therefor were made and erected by the city, with materials belonging to it, the only right of Mrs. Gaines as to them was, either to keep the same and reimburse to the city their value and the price of workmanship, or to require the city to take away or demolish them; that the obligation, under the law of Louisiana, rested upon Mrs. Gaines to elect which she would do; and that the city had demanded of her, through the master, that she should make such election, and that the master refused to direct or require her so to do, and thus denied the city its rights under the law.

The master to this reported that the city, by its counsel, had cited Article 500 of the Civil Code of Louisiana before him, and stated that it would call upon the complainant (then present) to elect whether she would keep said works and improvements placed upon the land by the city or pay the city for the same; and the master added that he had 'regarded this as a mere notice of what the defendant intended to do at some future time, but as the point was not presented in writing nor subsequently alluded to, he had assumed that it had been abandoned.'

In this state of things, and after the disallowance of some other exceptions, the report came before the Circuit Court (BRADLEY, J.). After examining those exceptions the learned justice came to the main matter, the allowance of the $125,266.79. On that subject he said:

'The case of the city is a peculiar one. The estimation of the rents and profits in that case is so uncertain and speculative that I do not feel entirely satisfied as to the decision that should be made. The master evidently felt the same embarrassment.'

And after referring to the different estimates made by the master, and specially to the one above given on p. 627, the learned justice said:

'As the master has not signified his adoption of either of these estimates, but has stated the facts to the court for its equitable determination, I have come to the conclusion that it would be equitable and just to set off the profits derived by the city from the drainage-machine for the past thirty-five years against the cost of constructions and repairs, and to charge the city with the rents of the building and land, less the ordinary repairs of the buildings, amounting, as shown by the report, to the sum of $125,266.79. Whilst the profits and advantages of the drainage-machine were indefinite and uncertain in amount, there is no doubt of their reality, nor, if we can place any reliance upon the estimates, is there any doubt of their being amply sufficient to reimburse the city for all its expenditures, including even the rent with which it is charged.'

The learned justice of the Circuit Court accordingly ordered a confirmation of the report. From that decree this appeal came.

Messrs. Miles Taylor and J. McConnell, for the appellant (suggesting that whereas the draining-machine was finished July 1st, in 1836, and that alone gave the land a value for rent, a charge for one year too much had in any view, been made), insisted upon certain exceptions, as follows:

1st. That the decree was erroneous in that it had the effect of giving to the complainant the buildings and machinery erected by the city, with the materials and at the expense of the city, without paying the value of the materials and the cost of the workmanship, or any other price whatever.

2d. That the sum of the rents and profits above stated was made up in part by the allowance of interest, at the rate of five per cent. per annum, on each year's rent, from the end of the year. This, it was argued, was in violation of the doctrines of the code of Louisiana of 1825, as shown in its articles 1939 and 1905.

3d. That the refusal to allow the plea of prescription in bar of all rents or profits for the use of the square, which were received by the city more than three years anterior to the institution of the suit on the 26th of December, 1856, was an error.

Messrs. J. Emott and J. Q. A. Fellowes, contra.

Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

The appeal before the court arises upon exceptions to the master's report only, and not to the original judgment.

1. It is only where the master or the judge, in acting upon his report, has departed from the order of the judgment or has omitted to enforce its provisions, that a just objection can arise. The judgment has decided that the plaintiff was the owner of this property in question in 1834, when the defendant entered into its possession; that then and at all times since the defendant has illegally kept the plaintiff out of its possession, and has itself been in its possession during the same period, and that it obtained and during all this time held such possession wrongfully and in bad faith.

This statement furnishes an answer to the suggestion that the rents and profits were allowed for one year, during which the city was not in possession. This is not an open question. It is...