V z
GAINES v.`C1'IY *0F$NEW- ORLEANS. ,27
complainant; that 'thereupon, in 1855, complainant succeeded in obtaining
the recognition of the genuine last will and testament of her father from the
proper tribunal of this state, and in 1860 her right to inherit and recover
under that will was authoritatively admitted and decreed by the supreme
court of the United States, in the case of Gaines v. Ilennen, 24 How. 615;
that, in that case, not only was every point established which was material
or requisite to entitle the complainant to vindicate her title to this entiro
tract of land, and to recover against this defendant,’but the 00urt emphasized
its decision by the expression of the hope that opposition to rights so clear
and, even then, so unduly resisted, would thereafter cease; that this defend-
ant, nevertheless, continued hor opposition by a defense to the suit of the
complainant against the defendant, in which cause, in 1866, the propositions
of law, and the conclusions as to the facts upon which the Case of Henman
_had been decided, were reiterated by the United States supreme court with
this severe rebuke to the defendant; “It was supposed after the decision in
Gaines v. Hemzen, that the litigation, which had been conducted in one form
or another for over 30 years by the complainant to vindicate her rights in
the estate of her father, was ended; but this reasonable expectation has not
been realized, for other causes, involving the same issues and pleadings, and
upon the same evidence, are now pending before this court." See Games v.
[City of New Orleans, 6 \Vall. 716. That the defendant, in the year 1867,
joined in the institution and prosecution of a suit known as the Fuentes
suit, in which it was attempted to revoke the decree by which the will of
1813,`upon which the complainant’s rights rested, had been probated; that
upon the suggestion by the defendant of the pendency of this Fuentes suit,
the circuit court of the United States for this district ordered a stay of pro-
ceedings in the causes known as the *·Agne1ly and Monsseaux cases," which
had been brought in that court by the complainant against several hundred
of actual tenants of this Blanc tract, who were intermediate warrantees of
the defendant, to recover possession and fruits; that these possessory suits
were thus made to pause till the final decree in the Fuentes case, whereby,
in»)Iay, 1877, the prayer to revoke the probate of the will of 1813 was re-
' ’ jected; that the Fuentes suit, of itself, hindered the complainant in obtain-
ing restitution 8 or 10 years; that, shortly after the decision of the supreme
court of the United States in Gaines v. City of New Orleans, numerous par-
ties, tenants upon this Blanc tract, under titles emanating from the defend-
ant, united in a petition addressed to her, in substance, asking that the de-
fendant should acquiesce in the demand of the complainant as the rightful
owner, make restitution, and end a useless and already decided contest; but
that the defendant refused to comply with this petition, and, through her
00unsel and attorney, entered upon and virtually conducted the defense against
the demand of the complainant for possession and for the fruits of this tract,
pending in the Agnelly and Monsseaux CHS8S; that complainant, in May,
1877, recovered judgments for possession and for partial rents for portions
of the time of her dispossession, which judgments, there being no appeal, be-
Cume final in May, 1879; that the insolvency of the tenants in the Agnclly
and Monsseaux case is established, and that the former holders of titles de-
rived from the defendant, former occupiers of this tract, are either insolvent
_ ·or dead, without representation, or cannot be found; that in Auzust, 1879,
this suit was commenced; that the answer of the defendant herein, among
_other defenses, denies all title on the part of the complainant to the Blanc
tract; denies that the' will of Daniel Clark, of 1813, is valid or operative, and
the capacity of the complainant to take under it, and her heirship; avers the
`complete good faith of the defendant; in short, with a temerity amounting to
hardihood, presents and urges, as if new and undecided, all the issues which
,had been for so many years controverted between the complainant and de-
fendant, and which were decided adversely to the defendant by the supreme