Case Name: J. D. Stille vs. W. L. Shull
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1889-10
Citations: 41 La. Ann. 816
Docket Number: No. 241
Parties: J. D. Stille vs. W. L. Shull.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 816–821

Head Matter:
No. 241.
J. D. Stille vs. W. L. Shull.
Possession as owner is an essential condition by which the ownership of immovables can be acquired without title or possession in good faith.
"When evicted, a trespasser, a possessor in bad faith can not recover the value of improvements.
As against a trespasser the plaintiff in a petitory action is not bound to show title perfect against the world. Ho can not take advantage of any defects in tlie muniments of title exhibited by plaintiff. An apparently good title is sufficient against him.
The irregularities and defects in a tax deed not apparent on the face of the deed are cured by the prescription of five and ten years, if the deed is valid in form.
APPEAL from tlie Eleventh District Court, Parish of Sabine. Person, J.
J. F. Smith for Plaintiff and Appellant:
All"irregulavities and informalities of a probate sale are cured by the lapse of five years. Passiana vs. Towell, 21 Ann. 584; Woods vs. Lee, 21 Ann. 505; R. S. 3392, 2376; R. C. C. 3543.
Irregularities and defects growing out of any judicial sale are as well cured by the lapse of live years as by -a judgment in a monition proceeding. R. S. 2376; Roberts vs. Zansler, 33 Ann. 205. .
A judicial sale cannot be attacked in a collateral manner. Louque’s Digest, Bale X, Ros. 2, 3; Dixey vs. Mandell, 23 Ann. 499; Anderson vs. Carroll, Hoy & Co., 23 Ann. 175; Doherty vs. Leake, Sheriff et al., 34 Ann. 224.
If the validity of titles acquired under judicial sales within the last forty years wore to he tested by the records in existence at any subsequent period, time, instead of healing the defects of such titles, would gradually weaken and eventually destroy them. In all such cases the presumption “omnia rite acta ” may well be invoked and applied. Old Hennen’s Digest. Evidence XXI, Ros. 47, 56, 57; Gibson vs. Roster, 2 Ann. 503 ; Rontenot vs. Husband, 2 Ann. 780; Gentile vs. Roley, 3 Ann. 146 ; Roberts vs. Zansler, 84 Ann. 205.
Since the adoption of the Constitutions of 1868 and 1879 all tax collectors’ deeds aro prima facie evidence of a valid sale, and such sales will be presumed to be valid until annulled in a direct action. 'Chose articles simply change the law of evidence, the effect of evidence, and apply to all tax sales, irrespective of the time when made. Const. 1868, Art. 118; Const. 1879, Art. 210; Gidden’s Executors vs. Madison Mobley, 37 Ann. 417 ; Jurey vs. Allison, 30 Ann. 1235; Lannes vs. Work. Bank, 29 Ann. 115; O’Hern vs. Hibernia Ins. Co., 30 Ann. 400; Konshaw vs. Iniboden, 31 Ann. 661; Asso. vs. LaBranche, 31 Ann. 839; Ludeling vs. McGuire, 35 Ann. 893; Roberts vs. Zansler, 34 Ann. 205: Dupre vs. Thompson, Sheriff et al., 25 Ann. 504, and case cited at Opelousas.
The possession of an immovable accompanies the execution of the act which evidences the sale, and the tax title or any other title translative of property, duly recorded, will form the basis and foundation for acquiring property by prescription. Gidden’s Executors vs. Madison Mobley, 37 Ann. 417; Roberts vs. Zansler, 34 Ann. 205.
Where there is no title translative of property real estate can he acquired only by a continuous and uninterrupted possession of thirty years, and under the title of owner. R. C. C. 3499, 3500; Dodeman et al. vs. Barrow, 11 Ann. 87.
Proscription by which property is acquired is interrupted, or ceases to run, whenever the party makes acknowledgment of the right of the person whose title they prescribed. R. C. C. 3520.
The possessor in bad faitli owes rents or fruits during the time of his possession, and is not entitled to pay for improvements. Hill vs. Bowden et al., 3 Ann. 258; Gibson vs, Hutchins & Vaughan, 12 Ann. 545; French; Executrix, vs. Bach et al., 26 Ann. 733.
Scarborough c6 Garver for Defendant and Appellee :
3.If the record does not affirmatively show the amount in dispute to he over $2000, the Supreme Court will not entertain jurisdiction. 39 Ann. 113 5 34 ¿Inn. 406.
2. Plaintiff in a petitory action must recover on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of his adversary’s. C. P. 44; 11 Ann. 546 ; 22 Ann. 57.
3. Even against a naked possessor plaintiff must show title prior in date to defendant’s possession. 15 Ann. 454; 23 Ann. 274.
4. Plaintiff even against a naked possessor, must produce a title hotter than auy that defendant can oppose against him. All outstanding titles enure to dei'endaut’s benefit. 11 Ebb. 240; 10 Eob. 510; 3 Eob. 206.
5. Defendant sought to be evicted by a petitory action can urge against plaintiffs title, by way of exception, anything that lie' could plead in a direct action of nullity. 1E. 378; 22 Ann. 20; 27 Ann. 121; 8 H. S. 105; 5 Ann. 678; 11 Ann. 761 or 671.
6. TJie burden of proof is on plaintiff in petitory action to show identity as well as title. 10 M. 293; 12Eob. 46.
7. Tlie prescription of ten years acquirendi causa requires possession to support it. C. C. 3479, 3487.
8. The prescription of five years (curing informalities in public sales per C. C. 3543) cannot be successfully plead by a party not in possession against one who is in possession. 1 Eob. 378; 4 Ann. 248.
9. Same rule as to prescription of three years (Act 105 of 1874). 39 Ann. 409; 32 Ann. 912.
10. Prescription will not be noticed unless plead specially. Pleading it in brief is not sufficient.
11. Under all the Constitutions prior to that of 1868, the purchaser of property at tax sale was obliged to show that all the formalities prescribed by law had been complied with. 19 Ann. 184.
12. A tax sale without assessment, notice or advertisement (besides other errors) is null. Corpus juris Louisiana} generally.
13. Uninterrupted possession of real estate, without good faith, for thirty years, confers title. O. C. 3499.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Tlie opinion of the Court was delivered by
McEnery, J.
The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on tlie ground that the value of the property in dispute is not shown to be worth over- $2000.
The answer of the defendant and appellee admits the property described and set forth in the petition of plaintiff to be worth $2300.
Plaintiff, in an amended petition, disclaims ownership of eighty acres of the land claimed by him in the original -petition. Deducting tlie value of the land relinquished there is left the value of the balance of the land claimed, $1,556, to which add the amount claimed for rent, •will make the sum of $23656.
The motion to dismiss this appeal is therefore overruled.