Case Name: Biaggio DOMINO v. Josephine and Maria DOMINO
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1957-11-12
Citations: 99 So. 2d 328
Docket Number: No. 43167
Parties: Biaggio DOMINO v. Josephine and Maria DOMINO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 99
Pages: 328–332

Head Matter:
233 La. 1014
Biaggio DOMINO v. Josephine and Maria DOMINO.
No. 43167.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Nov. 12, 1957.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1958.
Blanchard & Blanchard, C. A. Blanchard, Donaldsonville, for defendants-appellants.
J. Y. Gilmore, Sr., Leonard C. Wise, Morgan City, Faris, Leake & Emmett, Camille A. Cutrone, New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
HAWTHORNE, Justice.
Biaggio Domino brought this suit against his daughters Josephine and Maria Domino to rescind a sale by which he had conveyed to them approximately 153 acres situated in the Parish of St. Mary, Louisiana, near Morgan City. The first ground on which he relies for rescission is that at the time of the sale he was temporarily deranged and therefore incapable of consent under Article 1789 of the Louisiana Civil Code. In the alternative he pleads error and mistake and, further in the alternative, lesion beyond moiety.
By authentic act on June 30, 1954, plaintiff sold this land to his daughters for $30,000. Of this amount $5,000 was paid in cash and $25,000 was to be paid in five yearly installments of $5,000 each, the credit portion being evidenced by promissory notes. After trial on the merits the district court found that the property had a value at the time of the sale of $165,763.-56 and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff annulling and rescinding the sale on the ground of lesion beyond moiety, and ordering defendants either to recon-vey the property to plaintiff or to pay him the difference between the purported sale price and the value of the property. The trial court found all other grounds urged by plaintiff to be without merit.
Defendants have appealed suspensively to this court. Plaintiff has answered the appeal praying that the sale be annulled on the grounds rejected by the trial judge or, in the alternative, that the value of the property at the time of the sale be found to be $265,526.67.
On Motion to Remand.
After the appeal was lodged in this court appellants filed a motion to remand for additional evidence on the question of the value of the land by the introduction in evidence of an act of sale of 240 acres made about a year after the case was tried. A remand in the instant case would only prolong this litigation unnecessarily, for there is sufficient evidence in the record, which consists of five volumes of testimony and exhibits, to enable us to decide the case now. Moreover, in our opinion the evidence which movers seek to introduce would not change the result which we have reached in this case. The motion to remand is therefore denied.