Case Name: T. W. Ramsey vs. John S. Post et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1880
Citations: 1 Mann. Unrep. Cas. 285
Docket Number: No. 797
Parties: T. W. Ramsey vs. John S. Post et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Unreported cases heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, from January 8, 1877, to April, 1880
Volume: 1
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
No. 797.
T. W. Ramsey vs. John S. Post et al.
A vendee oí land may suspend or refuse payment of the price thereof, if he has legal grounds to believe his vendor had no title or not a good title to the land, and that he is therefore in danger of eviction.
Appeal from the District Court for Union. Graham, J.
Bamsey for Plaintiff. EUis & Kilgore for Defendants Appellants.
The suit was for the price of a tract of land, and the defence that the vendor, who is the plaintiff, had no title. Evidence in support of this defence was excluded on the ground that a vendee is not allowed to attack his vendor’s title, unless he avers that he has been evicted, or that he is threatened with eviction.

Opinion:
De Blanc, J.
That doctrine is still justly adhered to, when the transmitted title is merely defective; but it has been correctly held that one who has acquired from a vendor, who, it is charged, never had a title to the transferred property, has cause to apprehend that he shall be disquieted in his possession, and may suspend the payment of the price, unless he was — before the sale —informed of the danger of an impending eviction. Here, as elsewhere, the sale of property belonging to another is a nullity, and here — as elsewhere— where there is no title, there ever was, there is, there hangs a perpetual threat of disturbance, a perpetual danger of eviction. 29 A. 663; C. C. 2452 (2427).
If Ramsey had no title to the land sold, his claim for the price cannot be enforced; if he had, defendants have failed to substantiate any one of the defences urged against Ms demand. To ascertain whether he had or had not acquired the disputed title, the evidence should have been admitted.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.