Case ID: la_116/html/0942-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROVOSTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(41 South. 216.)
    No. 16,027.
    LEPINE v. MARRERO, Sheriff et al.
    (May 7, 1906.)
    Deeds—Recordation—Signature by Vendor Alone.
    The registration of an act of sale signed by the vendor alone will effect a registry of the sale. Hutchinson v. Rice, 33 South. 57, 109 La. 29, overruled.
    Monroe, J., dissenting.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    Case Certified from Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.
    Action by Felicien Lepine against L. H. Marrero, sheriff, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Case certified from the Court of Appeals by the judges applying for instructions.
    Question answered in the affirmative.
    Philip H. Mentz, for plaintiff. Rapp & Weiss and Louis Herman Marrero, Jr., for defendants.
   PROVOSTY, J.

Plaintiff’s home was seized as if still belonging to his vendor, although he held it by a cash deed duly recorded. The deed, however, was signed by the vendor alone; and upon that circumstance the seizing creditor relied in making his seizure. Plaintiff has enjoined the seizure; and the question presented is: Whether the recordation of a cash deed to real estate signed by the vendor alone will effect a registry of the sale as against third persons. Finding that this question had been decided in the negative by this court in the recent ease of Hutchinson v. Rice, 109 La. 29, 33 South. 57, while the former jurisprudence (Allen v. Whetstone, 35 La. Ann. 846, and cases there cited) seemed to be the other way, the Court of Appeal for the parish of Orleans, where the suit is pending, has certified the question to this court.

There is certainly a conflict, and inasmuch as the former jurisprudence constituted a rule of property, we have concluded to overrule the Rice Case, without stopping to debate whether its doctrine is not the logical deduction from the provisions of the Code on the subject of registry. “Omnis innovatio plus novitate perturbat quam ultilitate prodest.” Levy v. Hitsche, 40 La. Ann. 508, 4 South. 472; Douglas Co. v. Pike, 101 U. S. 677, 25 L. Ed. 968.

We therefore answer the question in the affirmative.

MONROE, J., dissents.