Case Name: James Williams et al. vs. A. D. Harmanson, Agent, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1889-07
Citations: 41 La. Ann. 702
Docket Number: No. 1,337
Parties: James Williams et al. vs. A. D. Harmanson, Agent, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 702–706

Head Matter:
No. 1,337.
James Williams et al. vs. A. D. Harmanson, Agent, et al.
1. Tlio prayer of the petition being merely for restoration of possession without any claim for recognition as owner, that fixes the character of the action to be a possessory one.
2. In such an action the fact and nature of the possession claimed are alone at issue.
3. It was not necessary for plaintiffs to allege the particular title under which they claimed to possess as owners; but such allegation, if made, does not convert the action into a petitoiy one.
4. If plaintiff alleges and produces a particular title as the basis of possession, and if such title shows, on its face, that the possession under it is precarious and not as owner, this would be fatal to the action; but the mere allegation of a title of ownership not produced or relied on, or even appearing in tlio record, will not put i>laintiff on proof of it as the sole basis of his right of possession, the nature of which maybe otherwise established.
5. When long jiossession is proved, accompanied by claims and acts of ownership, and in absence of any proof going to show a particular precarious title, law and the interests of society alike require its protection from extra judicial eviction.
6. Damages for wrongful eviction allowed and fixed.
APPEAL from the Twelfth District Court, Parish of Avoyelles. Goeo, J.
Oullom <& Gappel for Plaintiffs and Aiipellants:
In possessory action, the defendant is not allowod to attack the title of plaintiff, nor establish it in himself — Kemplo vs. Hulick, 16 D. 44; Dra/ier vs. Hardee, 21 Ann. 541 — for Article 55, C. P., forbids the cumulation of petitory and possessory actions, except by consent of parties — St. Armand vs. Dong, 25 Ann. 166; — but plaintiff must allege title to show in what capacity he claims possession. 16 D. 45.
He must show the right to possess as owner or usufructuary. 2 Ann. 749; 2 L. 227; O. P. 46 to 53, inclusive.
It is tlie prayer of tlie petition which determines the character of the action. 16 L. 44; Huglie vs. Brinckman, 37 Ann. 240 ; 34 Ann. 1179.
In an exclusively possessory action, neither party is permitted to introduce evidence of title. Richardson vs. Scott et al., 6 L. 54; 5 Ann. 690.
Where a landlord, instead of resorting to the means provided by law, for obtaining payment of Iris rent, and possession of his premises, takes uj>on himself, without authority, to remove tlie property and turn out tlie family of his tenant lie will be liable in damages; and will be no excuse that such removal was effected without violenta' or injury. 2 Robertson, 140; Thayer vs. Littlejohn et als.
In a suit for damages on account of trespass, the trouble and expense, the plaintiff lias been illegally put to, are to be considered in estimating the damages.
Attorney’s fees are part of such expense, and may be proved.
The attempt of a lessee or his vendee, to forcibly remove property subject to lessor’s privilege, is a trespass, sounding in damages. Co-trespass'ers are liable in solido. 29 Ann. 213.
Thorpe & Peterman for Defendants and Appellees:
1. In the possessory action, as in others, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff.
2. The issues in the possessory action are, first, the fact- of possession, and, second, the character of possession. 34 Ann. 1053.
3. When the plaintiff himself jiuts at issue his right of possession, exhibiting it in his title, he does so at his risk and peril. J bid.
4. One knowing and believing property to belong to another does not possess it as owner and can not maintain the possessory action. 13 L. 237; 34 Ann. 3 053.
5. The possession must he predicated upon an open adverse claim of ownership : a mere surreptitious claim to possess as owner will not suffice. 6 R. 103.
6. The party must possess as owner in presentí. 13 Ann. 572.
7. The refusal of the possessor to assess the land as his own and his application to third parties to buy it from defendant and sell it to him. are acts inconsistent with tlie claim of possession as owner, and evidence possession in the name of another.

Opinion:
Tlie opinion of tlie Court was delivered by
Fenner, J.
Tlie motion to dismiss this appeal lias no merit. Tlie record clearly establishes that the appellants made due and formal application for an order of appeal which was duly granted. The clerk having failed to enter the order oh his minutes, application was made to the judge, on notice to the appellees, to have tlie minptes corrected and the entiy of the order incorporated .therein, which application was granted by the judge.
As tlie order had been granted on the last day of term, application was properly made to the judge at chambers, and lie had the right there, on proper proof of error, to cause his minutes to he corrected so as to conform to the facts. The order as thus entered Axes the return day and complies with all requirements.
The suggestion that the amount in dispute is not within our jurisdiction, is equally unfounded. The claim is for restoration to possession of a farm and for damages for unlawful dispossession in tlie sum of over $5000. Tlie latter chain may be excessive, but it is serious, an'd not, in any sense, so fictitious as to authorize a dismissal of the appeal in a case in which defendants would have clearly had the right to appeal to this court., had judgment gone against them.