Case Name: Dorothy H. DUPUIS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robert C. BROADHURST, Executor of the Succession of Dr. Charles H. Wright, Defendants-Appellants
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1968-07-29
Citations: 213 So. 2d 528
Docket Number: No. 2423
Parties: Dorothy H. DUPUIS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robert C. BROADHURST, Executor of the Succession of Dr. Charles H. Wright, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before TATE, SAVOY and HOOD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 213
Pages: 528–532

Head Matter:
Dorothy H. DUPUIS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robert C. BROADHURST, Executor of the Succession of Dr. Charles H. Wright, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 2423.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
July 29, 1968.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, 1968.
Pugh, Buatt, Landry & Pugh, by Lawrence G. Pugh, Jr., Crowley, for defendants-appellants.
Domengeaux, Wright & Bienvenu, Lafayette, and J. Lyle DeBellevue, Crowley (Mark Bienvenu, Lafayette, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before TATE, SAVOY and HOOD, JJ.

Opinion:
SAVOY, Judge.
Defendants have appealed from a summary judgment rendered by the district court ordering a partition of certain lands in Acadia Parish, Louisiana, allegedly owned by plaintiffs and defendants.
Prior to the granting of a summary judgment, the trial judge had overruled pleas of prescription of ten years filed by defendants under LSA-C.C. Articles 3515 and 3478, and of thirty years filed by defendants under the provisions of LSA-C.C. Articles 1030, 1305, 3499, 3515 and 3548. Since the pleas of prescription were overruled, defendants could not appeal from this interlocutory decree.
In the case of Bielkiewicz v. Insurance Company of North America (La.App., 3 Cir., 1967), 201 So.2d 130, this Court held:
"When an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final judgment, the appellant is entitled to a review of all adverse interlocutory rulings prejudicial to him, in addition to the review of the correctness of the final judgment appealed from. ." (Citations omitted.)
In view of the above case, we have decided to determine whether the trial judge correctly decided the plea of thirty years' acquisitive prescription filed by defendants.
The stipulation of the parties to this suit as to the possession of Dr. Charles H. Wright, author in title of the defendants herein, is as follows:
"It is stipulated by and between counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for defendant, R. C. Broadhurst, Executor, that Dr. Charles H. Wright exercised acts of possession of the property in question from the time of his purchase to his death in 1963, by farming same and having same under fence.
"It is further stipulated that the property in question is presently mineral producing property producing gas and distillate.
"Further it is stipulated that the California Company, Drew Cornell, Inc., and Irwin Miller are paying royalties based on the production obtained from said property."
The record reveals that Dr. Wright purchased undivided interests in the property in dispute from the ancestors of plaintiffs.
LSA-C.C. Articles 3499, 3500, 3515 and 3548 state:
"Art. 3499. The ownership of immova-bles is prescribed for by thirty years without any need of title or possession in good faith."
"Art. 3500. The possession on which this prescription is founded must be continuous and uninterrupted during all the time; it must be public and unequivocal, and under the title of owner."
"Art. 3515. The rule, contained in the preceding article, is to be understood in this sense, that a man can not prescribe against an essential part of the contract.
"Thus the creditor on an annuity can not prescribe against the right of redemption; but one may prescribe beyond his title.
"So also, a person who has a title for one half an estate, may prescribe for the other half; for it may be that a new title has transferred the ownership of the property to him, or that he has acquired it without title by thirty years' possession."
"Art. 3548. All actions for immovable property, or for an entire estate, as a succession, ' are prescribed by thirty years."
Counsel for plaintiffs argue that since Dr. Wright and his heirs are co-owners with plaintiffs, the heirs of Dr. Wright can never acquire the plaintiffs' interest in the land by acquisitive prescription, citing Watkins v. Zeigler (La.App., 2 Cir., 1962), 147 So.2d 435; British American Oil Producing Co. v. Grizzaffi (La.App., 1 Cir., 1961), 135 So.2d 559; Mills v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Company (La.App., 3 Cir., 1961), 129 So.2d 78; and, Banks v. Yarborough (La.App., 2 Cir., 1958), 104 So.2d 283.
Counsel for the defendants, heirs of Dr. Wright, who were substituted for the executor of the succession, contend that the instant case is controlled by Succession of Seals, 243 La. 1056, 150 So.2d 13 (1963), decided by the Supreme Court of this State.
In the cases of Continental Oil Co. v. Arceneaux (La.App., 3 Cir., 1966), 183 So.2d 399 (cert. den. 1966), and Detraz v. Pere (La.App., 3 Cir., 1966), 183 So.2d 401 (cert. den. 1966), we followed the Seals case, supra, and stated:
" Where, as here, one co-owner goes into and continues possession by reason of a deed translative of title, even though the deed be invalid and the possession be in bad faith, the co-owner's possession ordinarily is then regarded as hostile to any claim of his co-owners and as normally rebutting any presumption that he was possessing for his co-owners as well as himself. Succession of Seals, 243 La. 1056, 150 So.2d 13."
The record shows that by formal deed of April 9, 1902, Dr. Wright acquired by sale from C. H. Hurd the latter's one-half interest in the 207-acre tract in question, these two parties having previously by partition deed of March 16, 1901 with Pierre A. LeBlanc, acquired this 207 acres in partition and settlement of disputes as to varying claims to the land between them. (They had each purchased various interests and portions from the heirs of Julian Leger, who had owned the land and who had died in 1845.)
In view of the stipulation in the record as to the possession of Dr. Wright, and the Succession of Seals, supra, we are of the opinion that defendants have a legal title to the land by reason of thirty years' acquisitive prescription.
Having determined the instant case on the question of prescription, it becomes unnecessary to consider the summary judgment rendered herein.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court overruling the plea of thirty years' acquisitive prescription is reversed, and judgment is hereby rendered in favor of defendants, John Wilbur Vogan, Mrs. Grace May Vogan Cornwell and Robert Vogan West, and against plaintiffs, Dorothy H. Dupuis, Ophey Simon, Jeneus Simon, Nita Simoneaux, Annie Simoneaux Marceaux, Mamie Simoneaux Green, Effie Simoneaux Gooch, Yvonne Simoneaux Broussard, Lula Simoneaux Alexander, Marie Nelia Simoneanx Bruce, Martin Leger, Pascal Duhon, Theolus Simon, Na-zair Mire, Aspezie Trahan, Aladin Trahan, Espazie Trahan, and Margaret Lucky De-bellevue, maintaining the plea of thirty years' acquisitive prescription and dismissing their suit at their costs both in the district court and in this Court.
Reversed and rendered.