Case ID: la-ann_18/html/0196-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Labaove, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Laurent Millaudon v. Henry J. Ranney.
    The petitory action, or one by which, real property, or any immovable right to such property may be subjected, is claimed, must be brought against the person who is in the actual possession of the immovable, even if the person having the possession be only the farmer or lessee.
    But if the farmer or lessee of a real estate be sued for that cause of action, he must declare to the plaintiff the name and the residence of his lessor, who shall be made a party to the suit, if he reside in the Slate, or is represented therein, and w'ho must defend itm the place of the tenant, who shall be discharged from the suit.
    The plaim-iff in an aclion of revendicaliou must make out his titile, otherwise the possessor, whoever he be, shall be discharged from the demand.
    APPEAL from the Sixth District Court of New Orleans,
    
      Houiell, J. G. Dufour, for plaintiff and appellant. Whitaker, Fellows <& Mills, for defendant.
   Labaove, J.

The first question presented is, wlietlier this action is a petitory or a possessory demand.

The plaintiff represents that he is the owner and proprietor of a certain square of ground situated in the town of Carrollton, in the parish of Jefferson, comprised within Canal Avenue, the Shell Road of the New Orleans Canal and Banking Company, and Dublin stoeet, known as lot No. 289, with, all the buildings and improvements thereon; aDdthatbe has always been in possession and enjoyment of the whole of said square, receiving rents from oue John Kellwick, for a portion of said square on which the buildings exist; that is, the corner of Canal Avenue and the said Shell Road, u„p to the 1st March, 1859. He prays that his title to the whole of the said square of ground, with all the buildings and improvements thereon, may be recognized, and your petitioner be put in possession thereof.

The defendant answered by a general denial, and further, that the said property is under the control and management of defendant by virtue of his contract with the Canal and Banking Company; and that he is authorized to collect rents; and that the property on which the rent is claimed is not within the bounds and limits of the square described by plaintiff; but, on the contrary, is located upon property subject to the said Canal and Banking Company, ,etc.

We are clearly of opinion that the allegations and prayer of the petition present all the ingredients of a petitory action, and that plaintiff was bound to make out his title to the property in dispute, and which he has failed to do. C. P. Arts. 43, 44. We have examined the evidence adduced in this case, and we concur fully with our learned brother of the District Court in the judgment by him. rendered; and for the reasons assigned by said Judge, the judgment must be affirmed.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment appealed from be affirmed, with costs.

Howell, J., recused.