Case Name: Omezia Simon et al. vs. Thelismar Richard et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1890-07
Citations: 42 La. 842
Docket Number: No. 1370
Parties: Omezia Simon et al. vs. Thelismar Richard et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 842–847

Head Matter:
No. 1370.
Omezia Simon et al. vs. Thelismar Richard et als.
1. The property which is the subject of controversy is worth more than $2000. The allegations of plaintiff, respecting the value of the property and the improvements claimed for rent, are not considered, except in so far as they may serve to corroborate the correctness of an estimate, predicated upon the value of the property, the title to which is involved in the suit.
2. The possession under which the prescription of thirty years is founded must be public and unequivocal, and the evidence should establish that the possessor claimed the property as his and exercised some rights as an owner.
,-i. It being shown that the property claimed was once jointly owned by the heirs, who inherited jointly from their ancestors and their brotheis and sisters, the condition of indivisión and joint ownership will continue, unless it be satisfactorily proven that the parties have parted with their title.
4. The illegitimacy and the incapacity to inherit must be proven by competent ’ and satisfactory testimony. The acknowledgment of the mother, although not entirely in form, will receive the court’s sanction, unless the incapacity be proven.
5. The author of the plaintiff’s title and the author of defendant’s title each owncd-one-lialf. In the absence of evidence showing a divestiture of title of some kind, they shall own in that proportion until a partition shall have been legally made or the joint ownership has been made to end. Joint owners can not acquire title to property by prescription as against each other.
APPEAL from the Twenty-fifth District Court for the Parish of Lafayette. De Baillon, J.
L. L. Bourges for’ Plaintiffs and Appellees.
O. H. MoiUon and Julian Mouton for Defendants and Appellants:

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction Ratione Materle.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
In tracing up the chain of title to the property claimed in this suit we had in view the motion made to dismiss the appeal. The value of the land is more than $2000.
The appellants once owned the whole tract, and are interested in maintaining their title to the whole.
Mrs. Zenon Broussard, one of the defendants, purchased two hundred arpents of the land in 1882 at auction sale. Roman Frances at the same time purchased the remainder. The latter has sold the land he purchased. The former still owns a part. They are sued to set aside the sale of 1882 to them; also are sued those who subsequently purchased from them, and plaintiff and appellee seek to have all the sales (those made to Broussard and Frances, and those made by them subsequently) annulled.
Title to the whole property is involved in this suit, and Broussard and Frances, who have appealed, are interested in maintaining their title to the whole tract, although the other defendants (their vendees) have not chosen to appeal. Plaintiff's allegations that the tract is worth $6400, and the claim for rental in the sum of $1800, not having been proven, are not considered, except in so far as they corroborate other evidence of the value of the land.
The motion is therefore dismissed.