Case Name: Lizzie E. Walker et al. vs. S. L. Barrow et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1891-06
Citations: 43 La. Ann. 863
Docket Number: No. 1243
Parties: Lizzie E. Walker et al. vs. S. L. Barrow et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 863–868

Head Matter:
No. 1243.
Lizzie E. Walker et al. vs. S. L. Barrow et al.
On Motion to dismiss.
The Supremo Court has jurisdiction over a partition suit in which the alleged value of the property sought to be partitioned and the amount of rents claimed by the plaintiff, together, exceed $2000.
On tiib Mb kits.
The rule that a deed conveying land to several persons by name and not stating the interest devised to each, necessarily conveys to them a joint title, does not obtain where the proof shows the proportion contributed by each, in the formation of the sum paid as the purchase price; such contribution fixes the proportion of the ownership.
'In cases of partition in real estate, not susceptible of a convenient division in kind, where improvements have been placed on the land by one of the joint owners, the proper way of ascertaining the relative value oí both, is to have them separately appraised, before the sale, to operate a rentilation of the proceeds, which aie then distributed ratably.
APPEAL from the Fourth District Court, for the Parish of Jackson. Wear, J.
Graham <& Holstead for Plaintiff and Appellant:
A deed conveying land to'several persons by name and not stating the interest devised to each, necessarily conveys to them a joint title. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, p. 678, Tit. Joint.
The validity and effect of contracts aro to be determined by the law of the place where made. O. J?., Art. 10; C. 1\, Art. 13; 12 An. 489, 199,24; An. 363; 10 An. 415.
The usufructuary is not entitled to recover taxes paid on property, subject to the usufruct, or for improvements made thereon. O. 0 578 and 594.
One co-proprietor can not erect improvements on the common property, without the consent of the other joint owners, and compel the latter to pay therefor. 10 An. 265; 26 An. 255; 23 An. 502.
The husband of Mrs. Barrow, who made the improvements, being without title, ■could not recover for the improvements, and his wife can not recover a community debt. C. O. 503, 3452, 3453; C. P., Art. 107; 9 An. 12.
Fred. W. Price for Defendant and Appellee:
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in civil eases* extends only to cases in which the matter in dispute or the funds to be distributed, whatever the amount claimed, shall exceed two thousand dollars exclusive of interest, and to suits for divorce, etc. Const. 1879, Art. 81.
2. The fund to be distributed in partition suits is the value of the property in contest; and if that value is alleged by plaintiff (as in this case) they can not be heard to dispute their judicial allegations or withdraw them, 35 An. 19; 34 An. 1063 and 1066; 29 An. 326; 28 An. 935; 21 An. 487, On Estoppel sec 31 An. 82; 7 An. 458; GM. 280; 11 An. *710; 4 An. 416; 5 An. IS; 21 An. 82; 38 An. 528; Gray vs. Gray.
On the Mehitk.
1. Contracts made in one State to be performed in another are to be governed by the law of the place of performance as to validity, nature, obligation and interpretation. O. 0., Art. 10; American and English Encyclopedia of Law, vol. 3, pp. 561-570.
2. The Lex Loci lid Sitm governs as to all transfers of real estate. United States, vs. Crosby, 7 Or. (U. S.) 115; American and Eng. En. of Law, p. 563; 31,a. An. 418.
3. iso prescription applies between parties setting up counter claims against each other, and the rule “qua: temporatio sunt ad agendum,” etc,, applies for defendant's benefit in this case. 17 An. 246.
4. Appellant and appellee only affected by appeal. 20 An. 121.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bermudez, O. J.
This is a partition suit on which a claim for rent has been engrafted.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Oxford, claims to be the owner, to the extent of one-fifth thereof, of 840 acres of improved land, in common with her two brothers, and her sister and her mother, who each owns a like proportion.
She claims rents of the property from her mother, from the time of her marriage, in the fall of 1883, with James M. Barrow.
The defense is, that plaintiff is owner of one-eighth only, and not entitled to any rent. Various counter claims are set up against her.
A judgment was rendered below, on the issues presented by the parties, which has satisfied neither of them.
The plaintiff has appealed from that judgment, and the defendant^ Mrs. Barrow, after moving to dismiss the appeal, has prayed for an amendment of it, in several respects.
The motion to dismiss is based on thé ground of want of jurisdiction ratione materiae.
It is without foundation.
The property, the partition of which is sought, is. valued at $1900, although appraised in an inventory found in the .record at $2100; and the claim for rent, during about seven years at $150,,aggregates some $1050, if not more.
This court is surely competent to pass upon the merits of a controversy involving such matters. .
The motion to dismiss is denied.