The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1884-09-13


bayou and went down the river towards
Colfax, which her husband sold IN l6Al
to Meredith Calhoun, and the same tract
which was specially excepted and reserv-
| ed, though by indefinite limits. az belong
ing to Eilaire Dubois In the succession
sale OF Graham to foung, under whacn
Mrs. Lane claims to hold tins properly.
Between the CLAIM set up py MIS- lane
and the one urged by cameron there Is
| then clearly no conflict, and Mrs. Lane ID
without colorado excuse TO question
| Cameron's title, unless she does u by ln-
lterposing some other title she CLAIMS
she has acquired this rlght by the pos
session of ten and thlrty years 10 un-
derstand the force OF this plea 1t becomes
necessary to observe that there Is held
some two miles to the rear OF this tract
knewn as 'Robertson,s Corner, which
seems to have been IN the possession, ana
was worked by VIM. Smith, the ancestor
OF Mrs. Lane, as far back as 1895 OF 1888:
Smith died some time about io4u. ana
Mary Smith Calhoun, the mother OF Mrs
Lane, succeeded by inheritance 10 the
possession thus commenced by ner IA
ther, Smith. In time the mother died'
and the daughter, claiming 70 nave sue
ceeded to the succession OF tne grand
father through her mother, mteiposes
this plea 1t IS sextuai provision Oh
our code that no prescription runs pc
tween husband ana wlie during tne GOV
erture. Art. 1913 Wnetncr the artlcie OF
the code referred 10 mere aPpn1s 20 tnls
class o. cases, ~ ~; re nrss S,'
70 oeclue II ,sn;s n n..sS oasas - ciaar
son . uo,ss In IN, ;r S n The nras.
a' nn - nf ~ u 10 .c,n;s;t,pn 81 an adverse
/ title by the husband from Dubois in l847,
only seven or eight years after the death
OF Smith The prescrlps:on OF 1hlrty
i years cannot therefore avali NIT. 1s LANE.
Nel!nsi Niii r she p d;aJ r - uoa ahons
a aS net 1850 H;s sn,, and adm;n;str sa.
~ av;dentIv traated the nroperty az
nronerty BELONGING to the Succession Of
Meredith Calhoun. his father. In no 9TH
er way can his acts OF administration be
explained away. We find the property
exposed and sold for taxes In 1877 or 70
as property belonging to the succession
{ OF Calhoun, and at a still later day ex-
J tposed at succession sale OF Cainoun'
provoked oy the creuitors OF the succes-
SION 70 pay Jus depts i4ese are l lsc'S
ina. 90 no. SNOW II MIS- LANE - s, s,,n 0,
~ ,so,,.l; 80, - tar YEAR. The pIea
me paesc.P:ron III ths;rfors havs - Il
, overruled. The view already taken Of
, tbe ca nae obv;ates the necessity Of looking
. Into the alleged informaliiies growing
out of the tax sale.
3 The Judgment Of this court must there
I fore be adverse to mrs. Lane in both Of
/, these cases, with afirmance Of Cameron't
right to the land in controversy.
24I. H. Mcknight administrator vs.
w Johnston. Judgment for plaintiff
Nv ~, 'v !, !. !, - q Ne,
: ~oi, ". A. - naao e' :" raosnt g.. ~
nmsnt au'n nr,n J""sSeAs ~
: pialn''n %t ~ 900 I s.t.,,.r
: So,, ~. W. ~. .S".%
Ju, IN m ~. r~;sht 80 ctava K;mbotI
SoI; 2. mchnigns vs. 0vo Sn m 81,
/ Ov' ..:~ eSs . ~; o.y hr,snt
e plo ono p s - pn:.. Carrie II S.,u
80 d. ,:I;. PHI" .o - '''''
q ocIn"s' n nis' 'Is ~,.,.,.na 60 A
= ' n'. :..5~".' 's sar ,,ia;rt;T
! neys we, {"cs". 40 r. uarL;r.
: ;,S.u, a M e., dsfsu,snt
ala w Il Moselev vs.. Philip Good,
e contested election ease. dismissed q
; nIaintiff's cost. M
y All. 81. James Church We. H. Nc
afKnicht- default.
4 ala Rem Kraft Us. Norman Williams
u INDICTMENT for nlaintiff.
a1q " n. Hollomau va. A. C. Maxey
= dismissed at nlaintiff's cost.
= 3o0 N. r. letter wife vs.. H. NJ. Jete
is husband, Judgment for plaintiff grant
% ing absolute divorce