Case Name: LANE v. FERRE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1918-01-28
Citations: 147 La. 796
Docket Number: No. 22850
Parties: LANE v. FERRE.
Judges: PROVOSTT, J., concurs in the decree.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 795–803

Head Matter:
(86 South. 186)
No. 22850.
LANE v. FERRE.
(Jan. 28, 1918.
On the Merits, May 31, 1920.
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1920.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
1. Appeal and error &wkey;882(4)— Party litigating with another as party in Interest cannot deny interest as ground for dismissal of appeal.
An appellee who has litigated, with another as a party in interest, until he has obtained against him the judgment appealed from, cannot be heard in this court to deny such interest, in order to dismiss the appeal, when the alleged want of interest existed prior to the rendition of the judgment.
2. Appeal and error <&wkey;!50(2) — Party, selling and warranting realty involved prior to judgment, has an appealable interest.
Where one’s title to real estate is attacked, and he sells the property, with warranty, prior to the rendition of an adverse judgment, he still has an appealable interest in the litigation.
3. Appeal and error <&wkey;604 — Right to dismiss appeal waived as to question of want of citation by stipulation as to transcript.
Where a litigant in whose favor a judgment has been rendered has entered into an agreement with his opponent as to the making up of the transcript of appeal, and, in this court, moves to dismiss the appeal on various grounds, including, as the first in order, a ground other than want of citation to answer the appeal, he will be considered to have waived the right to complain of that want.
4. Courts <@=>224(11) — No dismissal for want of jurisdiction, where petition states a value exceeding $2,000.
Where the petition of appeal contains a sworn statement that the value of the property in dispute exceeds $2,000, exclusive of interest, the appeal will not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction quoad such value.
5. Appeal and error <&wkey;795(2) — Allegations in motion to dismiss appeal held insufficient.
Vague allegations in a motion to dismiss an appeal, concerning the manner in which the transcript is made up, which fail to show prejudice to the appellee or fault in the appellant, are insufficient to require the dismissal of an appeal.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
6. Limitation of actions <§= 130(5) — Prescription; suit against tax purchaser within prescriptive period, but dismissed, had no more effect than if never brought.
In a suit under Act No. 101 'of 1898 to confirm a tax title, where the record shows that the purchaser was not the record owner of the other undivided half at his purchase at a tax sale in 1900, but had previously disposed of such other half, a suit against such purchaser in 1902, within the prescription of three years under Const, art. 233, dismissed for want of prosecution in 1913, under Act No. 107 of 1898, amending Civ. Code, art. 3519, had the same effect as if never filed.
7. Taxation <&wkey;764(2) — Description in tax deed held sufficient to vest interest.
A description in a tax deed, passed in 1900 for delinquent taxes in the name of a certain person, describing property as improved land, situated on the left bank of the Mississippi river, measuring 8 arpents front by 40 arpents depth, bounded above and below by lands of named owners, though named owner had an undivided half interest in land on 8 arpents front by 40 arpents depth, was sufficient for identification, and divested owner of his interest in such land.
Appeal from Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines; R. Em-met Hingle, Judge.
Suit under the statute by George P. Lane against A. Perre, or his heirs, to confirm a tax title, with appearance and answer by Henry St. Gez and others, alleging themselves to be surviving heirs of deceased, and claiming an undivided half interest in property in dispute, etc. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Motion to dismiss appeal denied, and judgment reversed, and judgment for plaintiff against defendants.
John Dymond, Jr., and A. Giffen Levy, both of New Orleans, for appellant.
John R. Perez and John Watt, both of New Orleans (L. A. Ducros, of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
MONROE, C. J.
Plaintiff brought this suit under Act 101 of 1898 to confirm a tax title, and caused curator ad hoc to be appointed to represent A. Eerre, the former owner, or his heirs, upon the allegation that he was uninformed as to his place of residence, or whether he was living or dead, but believed that he was dead, leaving nonresident heirs. Thereafter Henry St. Gez and Miss Louise St. Gez appeared, and on March 26, 1913, filed an answer,-alleging themselves to be the sole heirs of the deceased owner, residents of Erance, and owners of the property in question, and praying that they be so decreed; and there was judgment as thus prayed for, on July 15, 1915, from which plaintiff has appealed. Defendants now move to dismiss the appeal on the grounds:
That plaintiff had disposed of his interest in the property in dispute to Frederick Morrill, by notarial act of January 22, 1915, a copy of which they annex to their motion.
That no citation of appeal was ever issued or served on appellees.
That this court is without jurisdiction; the value in dispute not being shown by the pleading to exceed $2,000.
That the transcript is not properly indexed, and does not include all the documents filed; that the same does not comply with section 7 of rule 2 of this court.
1. Defendants having litigated with plaintiff as a party having an interest until they obtained the judgment appealed from, cannot be heard to deny that interest in order to dismiss the appeal. State ex rel. Bellamore v. Rombotis, 120 La. 150, 45 South. 43. Moreover, as it appears from the deed annexed to the motion to dismiss that plaintiff sold the property with warranty of title, he has an appealable interest. Simon v. Richard, 42 La. Ann. 842, 8 South. 629.
2. B aving entered into an agreement as to the making up of the transcript, and having moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds other than want of citation, defendants have waived their right to complain of that want.
State v. Graham, 25 La. Ann. 433; Hefner v. Hesse, 26 La. Ann. 148; Vallee v. Hunsberry, 108 La. 136, 32 South. 359.
3. The petition for appeal contains the sworn allegation that the value of the property in dispute exceeds $2,000, and, from the act.of sale annexed to the motion to dismiss, it appears to have sold for $3,000. We think that sufficient to establish the jurisdiction. State v. Hebrew Congregation, 31 La. Ann. 205, 33 Am. Rep. 217; State v. Pitot, 21 La. Ann. 336.
4, The last ground is vaguely stated, and shows no fault on the part of the appellant.
The motion to dismiss is, therefore,
Overruled.