GAINES v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. 29 t
t some instances, conducted and urged these defenses in the capacity  
’ of warrantor. The warrantor is, by the settled jurisprudence of this
state, the real defendant. Millaudcn v. McDonough, 18 La. 108, and
cases there cited. The defendant had the right, which the evidence
shows she exercised with a guilty knowledge, to assume the conduct
of the Fuentes case and the defense of the Agnelly and Monsseaux
cases, as well as with the same knowledge to procrastinate the acces·
sion of the complainant to her estate by the defense of causes where
she was the sole party defendant; but, by so doing, she incurred the
liability which rests upon all parties who employ legal process and
effect legal hindrance in bad faith, and against what are ultimately
declared to be rights of others, and to their damage; sl1e must make
full reparation. ""` ii""'
The case of Chirac v. Reinicker, 11 VVheat. 280, is in point, and
illustrates the ground of the defendant’s liability. In that case, in an
ejectment suit, there had been a recovery of possession against a
tenant, and a party, other than the defendant in the reported case,
had, with the consent of the plaintiff, been admitted to defend as
landlord. The court held that, notwithstanding this, if the defend-
ant had derived profit, and had aided in resisting the title of the
plaintiff and his recovery of possession by employing counsel and
defending the suit, he also was liable for mesne profits.
“An actual occupation of the premises by the defendants, during
the period for which damages are claimed, is unnecessary; it is suf-
ficient if he was interested in and derived profits from the premises
I during that period." Adams, Eject. marg. p. 383.
’ ’ The question as to the amount of damages is twofold, resulting
from the double character in which the defendant is liable.
If we view the complainant as simplysubstituted in equity to the
rights which the vendees, warrantees, would have had, the amount
to be recovered would be determined by what had been recovered in
the Agnelly and Monsseaux cases.
The evidence shows the defendant was called in warranty in some
of those cases, and was notified in all; that sl1e took upon herself
the defense, and through her attorney conducted it. The judgment
is binding upon the warrantor if he has been called in warranty, or he
is apprised of suit having been brought. Civil Code, arts. 2517,
2518, 2519; Code of Practice, arts. 388, 714. The cases of Vienna
v. I1a1·rie,·, 14 La. Ann. 382, and Late v. Armcrer, Id. 826, establish that
. judgment against the vendee is, prima facie, sufficient to authorize
judgment against vendor and warrantor, and that when the latter
has had notice, though he did not appear, the judgment is conclusive
against him. See, also, Johnson v. Weld, 8 La. Ann, 129, and Will-
iams v. Leblanc, 14 La. Ann. 757. I
The records in the Agnelly and Monsseaux cases were not only
properly introduced as evidence in this case, even without the verifica-
tion afresh by the witnesses of their testimony, which was also had,