22 ’ l`  FEDERAL izsroirrmn. ,
complaint is viewed with reference to either of the distinct grounds .
which it presents for equitable jurisdiction,—a fortiori, if it be viewed ·
with reference to all,—it states a case over which a court of equity -
has undoubted cognizance. l ·_
As to the cause upon the bill, amended bill, answer, pleas, and
proofs. The averments of the bill which it is necessary to consider ,
are as follows: That theoomplainant was the legitimate daughter
of Daniel Clark, and by his last willand testament (will of 1813)
became his universal legatee and inherited the property known as
the Blanc tract, which is set out in the bill by metes and bounds; _
that in the year 1834 the First Municipality, a corporation whose
property and liabilities were, by the amended charters, transmitted
to the present city of New Orleans, fraudulently obtained possession
under a pretended title of the said Blanc tract, and in the year 1837
divided it into squares and lots, and for a price exceeding $400,000
conveyed it to a multiplicity of grantees, who, by mesne conveyances, z
granted in parcels and subdivisions said tract to tenants, who, as
well as the original and intermediate grantees, took in bad faith.
The bill further avers an eviction and recovery by the complainant
against these tenants for the entire tract, and for fruits for portions
of the time of disseizin; their insolvency; that the defendant is a
warrantor of all said tenants; was notified, and, in fact, made the de-
fenses in the suits terminating in the judgments for eviction and for ·
fruits; that a separate suit for a portion of this tract was commenced
and maintained against the defendant, in which all of the facts and
propositions of law relating to complainant’s title and the liability
and wrong-doing of the defendant were judicially determined; that, V
in spite of the requests of the tenants to surrender to the complain-
ant, the defendant compelled them by threats to allow her to con-
tinue the defenses; that, as a final resort, when the "rights of the
complainant had been, after 35 years of litigation, fully established
by the probate of the spoliated will of Daniel Clark, by the supreme
court of this state, and by the complete establishment of the rights
of the complainant to this property, as against the defendant, by de-
crees between these parties by the supreme court of the United
States. the defendant, in the year 1867, caused a suit to be insti- "
tuted, for the pretended purpose of revoking the probate of the will
of Daniel Clark, and thereby delayed and hindered the complainants _
recovery for a further period of 10 years; that all this delay and"
hindrance has been caused by the defendant alone for the purpose of
enriching herself by thereby saving herself from her ultimate lia-
bility upon her warranty for the return of the price and for fruits
and revenues; and upon these averments the complainant demands
judgment against they defendant for the rents which were received, i
and which ought to have been received, and which the complainant`
would have received but for the alleged long-continued and enormous
wrong of the defendant. ‘ 4- -_ ` r