Case Name: WALL v. RABITO
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-11-03
Citations: 138 La. 609
Docket Number: No. 20232
Parties: WALL v. RABITO.
Judges: In this cause the Chief Justice takes no part.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 609–633

Head Matter:
(70 South. 531)
No. 20232.
WALL v. RABITO.
(Nov. 3, 1913.
On the Merits, Nov. 29, 1915.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1916.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
1.Appeal and Error <&wkey;801 — Motion to Dismiss — Disposition.
Where appellee prayed the appeal be dismissed or that the omitted evidence be sent up on allegations that appellant had not produced a complete transcript of the evidence below, and, after the motion to dismiss was filed, appellant applied for certiorari -to correct the record, and the clerk below made his return supplementing the transcript and certifying that the record then contained all the evidence which was filed in the case, reciting however, that some offerings by appellee, made by reference, were not included in the transcript because copies were not furnished or the originals filed, the motion to dismiss will be referred to the merits, with leave to the parties to supplement the transcript by the production of all documents offered below, as shown by the notes of evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3161-3164; Dee. Dig. <&wkey;> SOI.]
On the Merits.
2. Taxation <&wkey;679 — Sale by State — Objections.
Defendant in a petitory action was without standing to raise the question that in making the transfer from- the state, under which the plaintiff claimed, to the plaintiff; the forms of law were not complied with, since the state alone had an interest in the matter.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1361, 1362; Dec. Dig. &wkey;679.]
3. Real Actions <&wkey;7 — Petitory Action — Title.
As against a trespasser a plaintiff in a petitory action need not show a title good against the whole world.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Real Actions, Cent. Dig. §§ 21-25; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>7.]
4. Taxation <&wkey;679 — Sale by State — Objections — Standing to Raise.
In a petitory action by a plaintiff claiming under the state against a defendant who had title by adverse possession, defendant was without standing to raise the question that the transfer from the state to plaintiff was invalid because the forms of law were not complied with, since such transfer as to defendant, was res inter alios acta.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1361, 1362; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>679.]
5. Adverse Possession <&wkey;4^-PBESCRiPTioN —Running Against State.
Prescription acquirendi causa does not run against the state.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Adverse Possession, Cent. Dig. §§ 7-10, 12-57; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;4.]
6. Estoppel <&wkey;15 — Deeds.
Whatever title the state acquired through forfeiture of realty passed to the state’s grantee, though not mentioned in the state’s deed, as a vendor cannot set up against his vendee any title which he held at the time of the sale.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Estoppel, Cent. Dig. §§ 19-21; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>15'.]
7. Real Actions <&wkey;8 — Petitory Action-Reliance upon Title Not Specially Pleaded.
In a petitory action, where plaintiff, claiming under the state, deraigned his title only through tax sales and failed to mention forfeitures to the state, such forfeitures could nevertheless be considered as forming part of plaintiff’s chain of title, since plaintiff could support Ms allegation of ownership by any supporting evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Real Actions, Cent. Dig. §§ 26-35) Dec. Dig. <&wkey;SJ
8. Appeal and Error <&wkey;837 — Review—Evidence.
In a petitory action, where plaintiff, deraigning title from the state, did not mention certain forfeitures to the state in the petition, but alleged ownership generally, and, in support of such general allegation, introduced evidence regarding the forfeitures, to which defendant did not plead surprise, the evidence, admitted without objection, will be considered even though not properly admissible under the pleadings.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3262-3272, 3274-3277, 3289; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>837.]
9. Taxation <&wkey;679-Forfeiture to State-Statute.
Under the Revenue Act of April 20, 1877 (Act No. 96 of 1877), superseding Act No. 42 of 1871, providing, in section 53, that on the first Monday of December the properties posted for delinquent taxes were to be offered for sale at public auction, and, if the required amount was not bid on any particular property, it was to be adjudicated to the state, certificates of forfeiture for delinquent taxes, not reciting that the property was ever adjudicated to the state, but only that a list of delinquent taxpayers was filed and recorded, did not show that the property was transferred to the state for nonpayment of taxes.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1361, 1362; Dec. Dig. &wkey;679.)
10. Taxation <&wkey;421 — Tax Sales — Description oe Land.
In a petitory action by a plaintiff deraigning title from the state through tax sales, where it was not suggested that the owners of the land owned any other property in the square than what was assessed to them by the descriptions in the acts of the tax sales, nor that the measurements and the numbers there given for the lots were not exact according to some plan of the city, the description of the land in the acts was sufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 720-727, 729-735; Dec. Dig. &wkey; 421.]
11. Taxation <&wkey;415 — Tax Sales — Validity —Assessment After Death of Owner-Sufficiency of Evidence.
In a petitory action'where plaintiff claimed from the state, which acquired title through tax sales, evidence held insufficient to show that the assessment for which the lots were sold was made in the names of deceased owners, so that the sales were void.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 695-698, 700-703; Dec. Dig. &wkey; ■415.]
12. Taxation <&wkey;788 — Tax Sale — Conclusive Evidence of Advertisement — Statute.
By direct provision of Act No. 82 of 1884, § 3, a tax collector’s deed is conclusive evidence that the sale was advertised according to law.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1555, 1557, 1559-1569; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>788.]
13. Taxation <&wkey;745 — Tax Sale — Conclusiveness of Deed as to Advertisemeni-Statute — Constitutionality.
Act No. 82 of 1884, § 3, ipaking a tax collector’s deed conclusive evidence of a tax sale’s having been advertised according to law, was within the authority of the Legislature to pass.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Dec. Dig. &wkey;>745.]
14. Taxation <&wkey;693 — Tax Sale — Presumption of Regularity — Effect.
In a petitory action where plaintiff claimed through the state, which acquired title through tax sales, the presumption of regularity attaching to ■ such a , sale, in the absence of contrary proof, led to the conclusion that the lands in question, part of a square containing 13 or 16 lots, in which 29 were assessed, were not among those doubly assessed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. § 1388; Dec. Dig. <i&wkey;693.]
15. Adverse Possession <&wkey;57 — Prescription — Sufficiency of Evidence.
In a petitory action by plaintiff deraigning title from the state, which held under tax sales, evidence held insufficient to show that defendant or her authors in title acquired title by 30 years’ prescription.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Adverse Possession, Cent. Dig. §§ 277, 278, 655, 667, 687; Dec. Dig-. &wkey;>57.]
16. Judgment &wkey;>654^-DisMissAL — Conclusiveness.
In a petitory action the judgment of dismissal in plaintiff’s prior suit in ejectment against defendant’s predecessors in title did not bar evidence showing that a lease was executed by plaintiff to such predecessors as tenants, since the judgment did not settle that the execution of the lease did not exist as a fact.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. § 1165; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>654.]
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; George H. Théard, Judge.
Petitory action by W. W. Wall against Annie Winter Rabito. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Judgment appealed from' set aside, and judgment ordered for plaintiff.
Johnston Armstrong and Hall, Monroe & Lemann, all of New Orleans, for appellant. Charles I. Denechaud and I. Rivers Richardson, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
The motion is based on allegations that the appellant has not produced a complete transcript of the evidence adduced below, and the appellee prays that the appeal be dismissed, or that the omitted evidence should be sent up.
After the motion to dismiss was filed the appellant applied for a writ of certiorari to correct the record, and the clerk below has made his return, supplementing the transcript, and certifying that the record now contains all the evidence which was filed in the case. The return, however, recites that some offerings by appellee made by reference were not included in the transcript because copies were not furnished or the originals filed.
We think that the best disposition of the motion under the circumstances is to refer it to the merits, with leave to parties to supplement the transcript by the production of the original, or copies, of all documents offered below as shown by the notes of evidence.
It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss be referred to the merits, with leave to parties to supplement the record by producing any and all missing documents offered below as shown by the notes of evidence.