Case Name: Mrs. M. L. McNeely vs. James H. Hyde. M. Ryan and T. J. Hickman et al., Warrantors
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1894-05
Citations: 46 La. Ann. 1083
Docket Number: No. 11,459
Parties: Mrs. M. L. McNeely vs. James H. Hyde. M. Ryan and T. J. Hickman et al., Warrantors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 1083–1098

Head Matter:
No. 11,459.
Mrs. M. L. McNeely vs. James H. Hyde. M. Ryan and T. J. Hickman et al., Warrantors.
Matters once determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, if the judgment has become final, can never be called in question by the parties or third persons. It matters not under what form the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties the plea of res adjudieata estops.
APPEAL from the Fourth Judicial District Oourt, Parish of Grant. Ware, J.
W. G. Roberts Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellee:
ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL.
Unless the allegations of the petition show affirmatively that the amount in dispute exceeds two thousand dollars the appeal will be dismissed. 39 An. 113, Hite vs. Hinsel; 35 An. 311.
When the allegations of neither party show that the amount in dispute exceeds the lower limit of the appellate jurisdiction the appeal will be dismissed ex proprio motu. 35 An. 496.
ON PLEA OP RES JUDICATA.
The title to property having been once passed upon is res judicata between the parties to the suit and their privies. 22 An. 81, M. A. Leatts vs. Heirs of Williams; 30 An. 838, Compton vs. Sanford.
The plea of res judicata prevails as to all parties and their privies in the suit where the judgment was rendered, notwithstanding there may have been other parties to the suit. 30 An. 576, Ledieux vs. Barton.
A vendee acquires no better rights than his vendor had. 10 An. 570, Dusson vs. Beller; 1 Rob. 87, Oliver vs. Stephens.
Matters once determined between parties and privies can never be passed upon between them again. 43 An. 941, Broussard vs. Broussard; 34 An. 805.
The verdict of a jury in a civil case has the force of the thing adjudged on the issue passed upon. 38 An. 570; 19 La. 318.
This plea is to be determined by the issues raised by the pleadings and the judgment rendered. 35 An. 554; 17 La. 92; 7 N. S. 430.
The plea of res judicata may be presented in any form of pleading, and whenever the same question recurs between the same parties or their privies it estops. 44 An. 289; 35 An. 553.
PRESCRIPTION OE THIRTY YEARS.
A title acquired at a sheriff’s sale prevails until set aside by a direct action. 41 An. 1135; 24 An. 445.
Prescription based on title is coextensive with limits of title. R. C. C., Arts. 3498, 3437; 11 An. 471; 1 Rob. 159.
Possession once commenced continues by intention. 9 An. 155; R. C. 0., Arts. 3442, 3443, 3444.
' A possessor who proves that he has formerly been in possession shall be presumed to have been in possession in the intermediate time. 24 An. 453; 16 La. 10.
Possession of cleared land is possession of woodland adjoining on the tract. 37 An. 751.
A confirmation by Congress of a Spanish grant is a prescriptible title. 40 An. 710; 5 An. 647.
ON CONFIRMATION OF SPANISH GRANT.
Lands which passed into private ownership previous to the treaty of cession between the two governments are not subject to control of tlfe United States. 40 An. 710; 15 An. 673; 5 An. 647.
One having no title to the lands when confirmed can not contest the confirmation. It is conclusive. , 14 An. 98.
Possession under a requete conferred title in a Spanish subject, a fortiori would possession under an order of survey. 3 An. 59.
A confirmation dates back to the time claimant filed his claim, and is not defeated by an entry of the United States government, even before the confirmation. 9 An. 157.
A government map returned by the surveyor general without notice of private claim does not defeat the rights of the confirmee. 9 An. 102-3.
A confirmation by Congress for a certain number of acres on a particular stream, founded upon an order of survey, is a complete title. 4 An. 482, Pay vs. Chambers.
A survey by the government is not necessary to complete a title to a confirmation, unless the claim is confirmed as a floating claim. 9 An. 103.
Parol evidence is admissible to prove contents of deed when the original is shown to be lost or destroyed.
The recitals of an authentic act estop the parties thereto. 28 An. 107; 15 An. 684.
Robt. P. Hunter Attorney for Defendant and Appellant:
Where United States patents are issued for land prior to the definite location and survey of a Spanish grant, the patents are the superior title and must prevail. 11 La. Rep. 323, 587; 3 Rob. 293; 6 Rob. 139; 96U.S.530; 2 Wallace, 525; 7An.546; llAn.561; Act of Congress to same effect.
Parol evidence will not be received to prove title, unless the loss of the original and the non-existence of a copy is first shown. 39 An. 94; 45 An. 451.
By offering titles and asking a judicial investigation of them, the plea of res adjudicata, based on a part of the same titles, is waived and renounced. The offerings and the plea are inconsistent and can not stand together.
In a petitory action it is sufficient to defeat the action for the defendant to show a valid outstanding title in any one but plaintiff.
To support the plea of res adjudicata it must be shown that the two suits are between the same parties, in the same capacities; that the cause of action is the same, and that the thing adjudged is the same. All doubts are to be construed against the plea. 43 An. 216.
Where, in sales and • mortgages, the property sold and mortgaged is described so vaguely and indefinitely that it is impossible to locate the land by the description given, such sales and mortgages are null and void for want of description of the property.
A Spanish grant described as “ a tract of land of twenty arpents front by forty arpents in depth, equal to six hundred and seventy American acres, situate on the Rigolet du Bon Dieu, in the parish of Natchitoches,” could not be validly sold or mortgaged by this description, prior to its definite survey and location. Particularly where it is shown that the Rigolet du Bor^ieu in Natchitoches parish was then sixty or seventy miles in length.
Jno. O. Ryan Attorney for M. Ryan, Warrantor, Appellant:
The plea of res adjudicata is stricti juris, and must be established beyond question, and all doubts enure to the benefit of the party against whom it is pleaded. 43 An. 214.
R. J. Bowman Attorney for Hickman, Warrantor, Appellant:
The mere confirmation of a claim without location is not good against land sold by the United States and patented. 18 Howard, 473; 11 La. 587; 11 An. 561; 7 An. 546.
A judgment of the Supreme Court is often the reverse of the judgment of the District Court, and therefore the pleading of a judg ment of the Supreme Court as res judicata is not pleading the judgment of the District Court.
Evidence is not admissible to prove what is not alleged, nor will the judgment of the District Court, as evidence, sustain the pleadings of res judicata of the Supreme Court.
A record made up of extracts from a record in the Supreme Court is a mutilated record and not admissible in evidence.
The defendants in Hickman vs. T. J. Wells et al. are not legally the same as the plaintiff in this suit. She does not allege or prove that she derived the title she sets up from or through them.
On the contrary, the title by which she alleges herself to be owner is antagonistic to and inconsistent with the title adjudged to the defendants in the suit of Hickman.
A judgment sustaining a title can not be invoked as res judicata to sustain a title to which it is antagonistic and destructive.
The identity of the land in controversy with the land adjudged to T. J. Wells, Hughes and Bailey in the suit of Hickman is not shown.
In questions of res judicata every doubt is construed against the plea. Toul. 10, Sec. 157; 43 An. 216.
A possessor in good faith, if evicted, owes rent only from the time the thing is claimed by the owner. C. O. 3416.
A possessory action is not a claim of the thing by the owner.
A fortiori, a possessory action in which the plaintiff fails does not make the possessor in good faith a possessor in bad faith or responsible for rent until the thing is claimed in a petitory action by the owner.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
Plaintiff and appellee jshows to the court that the amount in dispute is below the lower limit of its jurisdiction, and for that reason the appeal should be dismissed.
The demand of the petition — and the prayer is to a like effect — is for the recovery of a tract of land valued at twelve hundred dollars, for the value of timber cut and removed, two hundred dollars, and for the rental value of the cleared land at the rate of two hundred and fifty dollars per annum, from 1889 to the date suit was instituted, August 18, 1892.
A simple calculation shows that the amount in dispute is something-over two thousand dollars and consequently this court has appellate jurisdiction.
The motion is, therefore, overruled.