Case Name: Henry F. Wade v. David W. Eames
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1874-05
Citations: 26 La. Ann. 449
Docket Number: No. 3375
Parties: Henry F. Wade v. David W. Eames.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
No. 3375.
Henry F. Wade v. David W. Eames.
Plaintiff, revoking tlie donation wliicli [he made to his wife of a certain pieoe of property, seeks to recover possession of said property from defendant, wliose title is derived from plaintiff’s wife under tlie donation aforesaid.
It appears that Mrs. Wade desired to donate the property in question, thus donated to her, to her daughter, Mrs. Eames, “as an extra portion over and above her legitimate share in the succession of said donor,” estimating it at $7000, and to secure the title, it was specially stipulated in the act, “that the said donor hinds herself and her heirs to war* ant and forever defend the said property against all legal claims and demands whatsoever.” To tMs act the plaintiff was a party, approving of it and authorizing Ms wife. He is therefore, estopped from disputing the title of defendant.
[Besides, the prescription of ten years invoked by defendant, is a complete bar to the action.
Appeal from the Fourth District Court, parish of Orleans. IMard, J.
Boselms & PMlips, for plaintiff and appellant. Fellows <& Mills, for defendant and appellee. T. Gilmore, Ootton & Levy, for defendants, called in warranty.

Opinion:
Wyly, J..
On the seventeenth of May, 1860, the plaintiff donated a certain piece of property to his wife, and on the same day she donated it to the wife of the defendant, who was her daughter by a previous marriage. Subsequently, defendant's wife died, leaving a child who inherited this property. The child dying, the defendant inherited it. Subsequently, the wife of the plaintiff died ; and then the plaintiff made a notarial act revoking the donation of the property to his wife and sued the defendant to recover possession thereof. The court gave judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals.
It appears that Mrs. Wade desired to donate the property in question to her daughter, Mrs. Eames, " as an extra portion over and above her legitimate share in the succession of said donor," estimating it at $7000. And to secure the ticle it was specially stipulated in the act, that " the said donor binds herself and her heirs to warrant and forever defend the said property against all legal claims and demands whatsoever."
To this act the plaintiff was a party authorizing and assisting his wife.
We think the plaintiff is estopped from disputing the title of the defendant. Valuable improvements have been erected and taxes paid on the faith of the title which Mrs. Wade passed with full warranty, and the plaintiff was a party to the act authorizing and approving of it. It would be a fraud to allow him now to recover the property. Besides, the prescription of ten years invoked by the defendant, is a complete bar to the action.
Judgment affirmed.