Case Name: Joseph Maumus vs. A. V. Beynet et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1879-04
Citations: 31 La. 462
Docket Number: No. 7233
Parties: Joseph Maumus vs. A. V. Beynet et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 462–467

Head Matter:
No. 7233.
Joseph Maumus vs. A. V. Beynet et al.
An endorsement by the clerk of the lower court, appearing in the transcript of appeal, on the back of all the documentary evidence in the case, except the note and mortgage “ filed as evidence April, 1878,” is a sufficient note of evidence, when it appears that the note and mortgage were made part of the petition, and that the judgment is on the note with full recognition of the mortgage.
"Where the judge below makes a written statement of the oral evidence given, it is sufficient for him to declare that his statement contains as far as he can recollect, and from notes of counsel, all the facts in the case.
"Where the assessment, insurance, and rental of the property in dispute show that it must be worth over S500, this court will have jurisdiction.
"Where property has been sold in a legal and bona fide way to pay the taxes due on it to the State, and the State becomes the purchaser, and subsequently after the time for its redemption has passed makes a valid sale of it to a third person, all mortgages on it previous to the tax sale in favor of individuals are extinguished, and no previous mortgage creditor can disturb the title or possession of any subsequent purchaser on the ground of fraud or simulation as between him and any previous purchaser.
'The vendee of the purchaser of property at a tax sale has the same right to receive a title to the property from the Auditor, after the time for redeeming the property has elapsed, as the purchaser has.
\ PPEAL from, the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Bightor, J.
Frank D. Chretien, for plaintiff and appellee.
Alphonse Canonge for Dufour, defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Marr, J.
Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal on two grounds:
First — That the record contains no note of evidence stating the documentary evidence offered on the trial; and no complete statement 'of the whole of the facts of the case.
Second — That this court is without jurisdiction, rañone materice, the demand being for four hundred dollars, with recognition of mortgage on the property described.
First. — All the documentary evidence in the record, except the mortgage and the note, is marked by the clerk, "filed as evidence, 27th April, 1878," which was the day of the trial. This is a sufficient note of •evidence.
The note and the mortgage are set out in the petition, and each is made part of the petition. The judgment is on the note, for the amount •of it, with interest, with recognition of plaintiff's right of mortgage on the property described. Certainly this shows conclusively that the note and mortgage annexed to, filed with, and made part of the petition, were in evidence, and were considered and passed upon by the court.
There is a statement of facts by the judge, which purports to give the oral testimony taken on the trial. The judge says : it " contains, as far as I recollect, and from notes from counsel for plaintiff and defendant, all the facts in this case." We think this is sufficient. In fact, the complaint of appellee is that the documentary evidence, " which appears in the transcript, is not mentioned, although it forms the foundation of the whole suit."
Second. — The note ^and mortgage were executed by Beynet, one of the defendants. The mortgaged property was purchased at tax sale in 1876, and conveyed to one Mrs. Otto, by the tax collector. She sold the property to Mandin, another one of the defendants. The Auditor, after the expiration of the legal delay, conveyed the property to Man-din; and Mandin, by public act, before Lucatel, notary, conveyed the property to Dufour for three thousand dollars.
The suit was brought to subject this property to the mortgage •executed by Beynet on the ground that the several sales by the tax collector to Mrs. Otto, by Mrs. Otto to Mandin, by the Auditor to Mandin, and by Mandin to Dufour, were fraudulent, and without consideration.
The prayer is, that the sale and title to Mandin " be declared simulated, collusive, fraudulent, illegal, null and void : that the sale to and title of Dufour be declared equally null, void, simulated, collusive and fraudulent; and that Beynet be declared and recognized as the true and legal owner of said property."
The appeal is by Dufour ; and it is manifest that the matter in controversy, so far as he is concerned, is his ownership of the property. The evidence shows that it was assessed for taxation, in 1874 and 1875, at $5500: that it is insured at $800 ; and that it is rented for $35 a month. Beyond question the value in dispute is far above $500; and the jurisdiction ratione materias is complete.
The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.