Case ID: la_11/html/0414-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bullard, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BROWNSON vs. RICHARD.
    Westers- Dist.
    
      Sept. 1837.
    
    ADPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PARISH OF ST. MART, THE JUDGE OF THE SEVENTH PRESIDING.
    Where the boundary line between the original proprietors of two contiguous tracts of land has been fixed by judicial decision, and become final, it will have the effect óf res judicata between the subsequent proprietors, holding under the original ones, respectively.
    This suit commenced by injunction, to restrain the defendant from cutting timber on a tract of land, eighteen arpents front by forty in depth, on the bayou Vermilion, and which the plaintiff claims under a title translative of property, and by the prescription of ten, twenty and thirty years’ possession.
    The plaintiff purchased from one Joseph Latiolais, who previously had a contest for four arpents, with Louis Richard, from whom defendant purchased, upon which their respective boundaries rested, and the land in dispute was decreed to Latiolais, and their boundaries fixed. The plaintiff now claims about two arpents front, running over defendant’s line, to a dotted line that figured in a plat made by Garrigues, in the suit of Latiolais.
    The defendant set up title to this strip, and which was included in Jackson’s plat of survey, returned in this suit, and the boundaries market C D and E F.
    The defendant averred, that the boundaries between the-two tracts were definitively settled by the suit of Latiolais vs. Louis Richard, and which he pleads as rem judicalcm.
    
    
      -where the bg™g^tj,e 0“ ginal proprietors oL^tracts^of by^udidai decision,and be-“yuT have’the ^between'tte subsequent pro-underlie °origS h,aei™esi'esi?ect”
    The case was tried before the district judge, on the evidence and documents and plats of survey produced in both suits.
    The judge was of opinion, that the defendant’s lower line was the same with the upper dotted line in Garrigues’s plat, on file in the suit of Latiolais, etc., and established as the boundary therein. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, fixing his lower line as he claims, to the line E F in Jackson’s plat. The plaintiff appealed.
    
      Simon, for plaintiff.
    
      Bowen, contra.
    
   Bullard, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The principal question presented in this case, grows out of the exception of res judicata set up by the defendant.

The parties are owners of contiguous tracts of land, the plaintiff holding through Joseph Latiolais, and the defendant through Louis Richard. In a suit between those parties, a boundary line was finally settled by the District Court, and affirmed by this court, which is represented on the plat returned in the case now before the court, by the letters E F en Jackson’s plat, corresponding to the dotted line on the plat of survey by Garrígues, in the case of Latiolais vs. Richard. The evidence in this case shows, that the defendant has continued to hold according to that judgment, which we are of opinion, precludes the plaintiff from setting up title to any land beyond it, under his purchase. The evidence does not establish the trespass complained of.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.