car:-was v. om: or New census. gg
The defenses contained in the answer of the defendant are, in sub-
. stance, a denial of the bill, as well as (1) plea of prescription of one,
two, and three years; (2) good faith of the defendant; (3) reduction
of amount alleged by the bill to have been received for the property
at public auction; (4) collusion in the case of Gaines v. Hennen;
(5) denial of insolvency of the tenants; (6) plea that the judgment
in the case of Gaines v. City of New Orleans is such an adjudication
as precludes complainant from bringing this suit; and (7) irregular
and fraudulent character of some of the judgments in the Agnelly
and Monsseaux, i. e. the possessory, suits.
i I will consider these defenses seriatim: t
(1) Prescription. This is a suit which, according to all authori—
ties, both under the common law and the law of Louisiana, could not
have been brought until the complainant had recovered possession.
Gaines v. City of New Orleans, 15 Wall. 633. Her judgments in the
Agnelly and Monsseaux cases, wherein she recovered judgment for
possession and for partial fruits, were rendered May 7, 1877, and
therefore did not become hnal until May 3, 1879. This present suit
was filed August-7, 1879. * All ground, even·for discussion as to pre·
— scription, is—wanting. _ . · . .
(2) Good faith of the defendant. This issue has been absolutely
and finally settled adversely to the city of New.Orleans, in Gaines v.
City of New Orleans, 6 \Vall. 642, and 15 Wall; 633. ‘
` (3) As to the amount of price received fromthe sale of the mane
tract at the public auction in 1837. The report of the master and
. . the adjudication shows the aggregate amount derived from this sale
to have been $482,525, besides $86,405; the amount of price of ad-
judication of certain lots for which no evidence of deeds of sale ap-
pears; Master’s Report, p.·24. ’ . ‘
(4) As to any alleged collusion between the parties in the case of
Gaines lv. Hennen, there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record in
support of this averment; and it becomes of little moment except as
bearing upon the question of good faith of therdefendant. This has,
as has ·been observed before, been settled, and is no longer an open
question. · ( ~ -
· (5) The matter ofthe insolvency of the tenants appears by the tcs-
timony of Florville Foy and Jules Vienne. V
(6) Plea that the judgment in the case of Gaines v. City of New
Orleans is such an adjudication as precludes the complainant from
- bringing this suit. » The suit here referred to is known in this record
as suit N0. 2,695. It was an ejectment suit, conducted on the equity
side of this court as a suit in part for discovery.- It was filed origi-
nally with reference to the whole Blanc tract. The defendant’s answer
contained a disclaimer as to any title or possession of the tract ex-
cept that square upon which was situated the draining machine and
some other small pieces. The answer disclosed the names of the ocy
cupants who were alleged to-be in possession of the rest of thetract.