,. 30 ,· · FEDERAL- B.E1*(OD[IER• r
. but the defendant, having had notice,-and having appeared, is con-
cluded by the judgments therein rendered both as to the eviction and
" as to the fruits- , _- _
‘ As tothe rule to be followed in ascertaining the rents and prohts,
_ the court, in the order of reference, directed the master to take ac-
count, not only of the rents, revenues, and values for use actually
_received, but also of those which the evidence showed would have
" been received with ordinary good management. In the Agnelly and
Monsseaux causes, in response to a request of the masters for instruc-
” tions upon this point, the court ruled as follows: ·
. **The defendants therefore must, in accordance with the verytextual pro-
yvisions of the law, restore all products of the property which they have pos-
` sessed. They are also liable for the products which they ought to have real-
ized with ordinary good management. The possessor in bad faith is not
' held to the highest possible degree of skill and care, but he must have admin-
_ istered as a prudent master of a family. Winter v. Zacharie, 6 Robinson, 467.
This was a cause in which the defendant had wrongfully possessed a planta-
tion, and he was adjudged not only liable for the fruits which he received, but
those which he could have received with ordinary husbandry; and the doc-
trine is laid down in express terms that the possessor in bad faith must not
_ only restore the fruits received, but also those fruits which, with ordinary
V good management, he ought to have received. That case was determined in
the first instance after a thorough argument, and an elaborate opinion was
written. Upon a rehearing the court reiterated their view, and it is the set-
tled law of Louisiana down to the present time. _
i **This question has been raised in the reports of both masters, whether the
principles already enunciated apply to all lands, improved and unimproved.
They apply to all lands unimproved as well as improved. The complainant is
‘ not entitled to a recovery for the revenues which might, by the remotest pos-
sibility, have been received by the possessor; on the other hand, she is enti-
tled to all income, revenues, profits, and valuefor use or occupation which the
‘ evidence establishes she, as owner, would have received or derived whether
the possessor has realized them or not, and whether the failure on his part to
realize them resulted from his not managing the estate with ordinary pru-
dence, or from the estate remaining unproductive by reason of the title thereto
being in dispute on account of a claim of title on the part of the possessor,
T now adjudged to have been unfounded."
This is the doctrine distinctly laid down by Mr. Justice BRADLEY
in Gaines v. Lizardi and Gaines v. New Orleans, 1 Woods, 105. This
is the settled rule of the civil law—The Partidas, (Moreau & Carl-
ton’s Ed.) vol. 2, p. 1109, tit. 14, law 4: "If the possessor held in
I bad faith and was evicted, he would have been obliged to deliver
up the estate, together with all the fruits he had gatheredlfrom it,
_.those which he had consumed, and even the rents and fruits which
_ he might have gathered from the estate had he cultivated it, inas-
. much as he had no right to possess it and has acted in bad faith."
. Precisely this principle was laid down by the circuit court of the
_. United States_ for the district of Arkansas in Beebe v. Russell, 19
How. 285, which was an action for fraudulently withholding real es-
” tate, and for rents and profits; According to the statement of the
Vsupreme court in their opinion, wherein they assign their reasons for