UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

The City of New Orleans sold a lot in the city for a certain sum of money, the payment of which was not exacted, but the interest of it, payable quarterly, remained as a ground rent upon the lot. It was further stipulated that if two of these payments should be in arrear, the city could proceed judicially for the recovery of possession, with damages, and the vendees were to forfeit their title.

Six years afterwards, the city conveyed the same lot to another person, who transferred it to an assignee.

The title of the first vendee could not be divested without some judicial proceeding, and the dissolution of the contract could not be inferred merely from the fact that the city had made a second conveyance.

Therefore, the deed to the second vendee, and from him to his assignee, were not of themselves evidence to support the plea of prescription. The city, not having resumed its title in the regular mode, could not transfer either a lawful title or possession to its second vendee.

The circuit court having instructed the jury that, in its opinion, under the written proofs and law of the ease, the plea of prescription must prevail, and the written proofs not being in the record, this Court cannot test the accuracy of its conclusion.

The facts in the case are set forth in the opinion of the Court. clubjuris

Page 56 U. S. 327