26 L ` · FEDERAL REPORTER.  
complainant, itis allowed to the extent andfor the reasons set forth
in the opinion. The additional exception as to the property con-`
veyed to McDonogh, and by him bequeathed to the city of Baltimore,
is also founded on a misapprehension. The account is brought
down only to 1848, the date of the conveyance from the defendant
to McDonogh.
The question remains whether the complainant has substantiated
her bill, and, by tl1e proofs, made such a case as to entitle her to a
recovery. The complainant’s title-that is, her capacity to take; her
heirship; her legitimacy; the will, and her right to inherit under it;
the entry into possession of this Blanc tract by the defendant; that
the defendant in bad faith took her title and sold the property and
received the price, and in all her relations to said property is to be
deemed a person dealing in bad faith; that complainant has not re-
nounced her title; and the legal identity of the First Municipality and
the city of New Orleans, the defendant,—all these facts and issues-
have been settled beyond question by the supreme court of the United
States by a solemn judgment between these parties. See record`
in suit, Gaines v. Oily of New Orleans, No. 2695 of docket of this
court, and the case as reported, 6 Wall. 716 and 15 Wall. G24. ·
Under the civil law and the textual provisions of our Code, the
seller, even in good faith, in case of eviction, is bound (1) for a res--
titution of the price; (2) for a restitution of all fruits and revenues}
which the vendee is obliged to restore to the owner; (3) for the costs;
and (4) for all damages which the vendor has suffered, besides the
price paid. Civil Code, arts. 2506, 2507, 2510; Alorris v. Abat, 9*
La. 557; and Downes v. Scott, 3 La. Ann. 278.
The possessor in bad faith is bound to surrender the thing imme-
diately, and the seller and warrantor, who took and conveyed in bad
faith, is bound forthwith to restore the price to his vendee and to
acquit, i. e., discharge, for him his liability to the owner without`
suit or condemnation. He is in law a usurper, and liable for his sue-
cessors. Pothier, Cont. of Sale, No. 127. `
The complainants title being incontrovertibly established, as well
° as the malt; fides of the defendant, the simple inquiry is, in what
manner and to what extent did the defendent delay or hinder resti-
tution? for any delay, much more, any hindrance, was a fault.
The testimony shows:
That in 1836 this complainant Hrst commenced her judicial demands against
the First Municipality, in whose place the defendant stands, for this property;
that six times she has been compelled to go before the supreme court of the
United States, upon an appeal or writ of error, in the prosecution of her
efforts to obtain restitution, niediately or immediately, from the defendant;
that, prior to the year 1855, that tribunal could `give no relief, though inti-`
mating that they were impressed with the equity of her cause, because she
claimed property situated in the state of Louisiana. under a will not probated
in that state. and from a testator whose will was declared by the probate
courts of that state to be a different instrument, and one which excluded the