The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-02-21
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Condensed Decisions-NEw ORLEANS. Feb. 10,


why they should be held to the same mean
nit forms constituent part Of the price: The vendor
bound to explain him :elf clearly the of his
oDlgaons and an obscure ambiguous clause must be
interpreted against him. Z. e. 24i9.
J. ARNoULD KIT AL Mrs. MARIE ANTOINE FoU-
CHER, WIDOW OF THE LATE z. "A DELACHAIsE.. Appeal
from the Third Judicial District Court Parish Of LETTER.
son..No. 977 in the Supreme Court. .EUsTIs c. j..
Per curam In the year 1897 the late Joseph Witt, the
ancestor of the plaintiffs laid part of his plantation in
the present Parish of Jefferson into lots and sold them
different persons, according plan The tract of land
thus disposed of four apents front the river by forty
Depth The plan exhibits in the middle of the
tract of hundred and ten feet and of lots each
SIDE fronting on the avenue, making forty in number
Between the lots nearest 10 fine and the road space
was left undivided and vacant well the batture in
front the remainder Of the tract beyond the foryt lots
the rear was in the same condition There written the
QUARTER De Piaisance Plan Of the plantation Of Mr. Jo
seph Witt two and half miles above the city divided into
gardens etc. Note: the lots numbered and cooTed in red
are the only ones for sale at present New Orleans 2d
Wilt Prospectus The portion of the front of the batture
the forty TWO lots oe ed for sale at this time and Conform
y with TIE titles OF the VENDOR abandoned in perpetuy
end the pasture but three head Of animals for
only and not for Povson IS then made f hat the
be mads BY The be puase and the bo e Ind
dssnt persons in " aeeerdance
popeor @aae paoa OF the
front the baure and the the tract which they held
pan @ the vsndo
e @ Se Dn and holds the ,a made
portions of the original tract the ground that the right of
f t o ass has
terminated by reason Of the acts Of the defendant
4. ha to which the District Judge held
e s of n only s sna ID to wit III The the
s ae IL, APPEALED lots
the ahd the
by original purchasers of the lots laid and sold by the
It eoneed ed that the defendant the of
given under the plan and prospectus before mentioned and
the forty two lots, and were not at the time of Partition
The position of the defendant that the plaintiffs have
right title nor interest in the land sued for, to wit the 'front.'
the oaue the S land and the cypress the
Sfy The Wh0e forming the plantation divided into
If consider the language made of by the vendor
ddposng of this property certainly has The Of
to reserve or did reserve any title interest adversely to the
could scarcely used to indicate complete dvesture Of
all right in the property on his part He qtandons
land in the of the lots The abandonment excludes
any reservation as to the title positively the per-
fully the Obligation o the sendo
under the Roman lay grgsars eaptgy hG1e,e esr
the condition that the purchasers of the lots shall only be al
lowed 10 send the common pasture three head
and wood for their private wants creates an use
merely in the purchasers and that the only interest conveyed
The formidable to this that
presented by the contract ITSELF which strengthened by the
Se Institution & u upon up 10 the time OF
In aseertaning the meaning of the used and whether
usuuct only has been created by hem the diligence of
counsel has brought to aid the opinions of authors
which the contract under consideration is written
PIoudhon considers that perpetuy contrary to the
essence oil usnrGc and IT the entire enjoyment of an estate
Deen DeQueathed
the right bequeathed would have only the Of usuue
lays i down as rule that when in estamentary dspo'
sn the gift 81 ht3 be not
Itself The nspruc being essentially temporary it neces
abshed il appears that the instruct only conveyed in
which the separation of the right Of enjoyment from
view authors who have written on the subject hold ac
codng to the texts of the Roman law that the legacy
house to Inhabt it. that of estate to it, that of
domain order that the egatee may have wheewitf to
s one n IN .ae the
motive the of the bequest and another bequeath
only the simple night Of enjoyment. Proudhon, Taite
Wehink the opinions Of this author on this subject are in
the defendant IN the Pontaba U.s. The First Mum
soen ha decided 6y s CGq no yet
der donation the effect of which less clear to its
vesng the property than the sale under consideration
Under this Interpretation cannot say that Wilt retained
it to the purchases of the lots If in testament or dona
s sn the ws Sds ssv ct M9 f inf
ing the contract Of sale where every thing embraced in it
But if no usnnc was created it urged by the counsel
Tor the plaintiffs that the purchasers OF lots acquired the
bature front ground and cypress swamp other
The abandonment perpetuity of these objects as we
have made in favor Of the purchasers ofthe lots
be by them enjoyed in common with this sale, conditioned
a1 the s sfa shall not send INTO the
they have only the right to cut wood in the cypress swamp
for their own use and not for sale.
1t that the question presented by this position
OF counsel Is already determined by the conclusion which
ot, This right Of confined the pasture ground
and the swamp and did not extend in its be-
yond them The condition evidently intended regu
nothing e
in order to enable each one to the property with
unusual in it, nor does conflict with any Of the avowsd
objects of the sails, but j, in furherancs of them all
Of the terms made Of in iii: the lazy wsad
tent Of bis obligations, and obscure ambiguous clause
We think The plaintiff: are without any right title or inter-
est IN the land which + the subject Of the present sp!t
the land dispute situated has appealed The Judge
ment of the District Court in favor Of the plaintiffs. and has
The corporation claims the property dispute public
the ground of its been dedicated to public by
the &c us Plan and NGt nd all of which were
The evidence in this does not establish dedication
Of this land to public and the corporation OF FIeepor
moved to dismiss this appeal the party before the Cou
but has adduced nothing which affects the rights of the
defendant
The judgement of the District Court is therefore reversed
AID rendered for the defendant with costs both
Courts. .Maurian g. Lambert for plaintiffs and appeees
Roselius for defendant and appellant.
Where Insignificant error of calculation has occurred in
the judgement of the lower court and relief sought
by an application for a new trial. the Supreme Court
will not the judgement nor nict the of the
appeal on the appellee
:. M. DOWNS rs. E. TERRY EFT AL....4ppeal from the
Tenth Judicial District Court. . SIIpELL J Per Gu
riam: THE defendants complain that the judgement
allows interest from too early date The difference arising
from the alleged about FIVE dollars No effort was
made to have it corrected by application for new trial
The insignificant justify the reversal of the
judgement and the infection upon the appellee of the costs
of the appeal. See Medley Vors, Annual l4i.
Judgement affirmed with costs" Dunlap Harmon for
defendants and appellants Stockton Steele for plaintiff
and appellee
When succession is nsovent and debts have been
paid the property cannot be adJudicated 10 party, in
accordance with IN the last Will OF the decea