Case Name: Gridley et al. v. Conner
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1849-06
Citations: 4 La. Ann. 416
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gridley et al. v. Conner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 416–418

Head Matter:
Gridley et al. v. Conner.
A party will not "be permitted to deny what he has solemnly acknowledged in a judicial proceeding.
One who opposed the seizure of slaves under a judgment, on the ground that they belonged to him, and whose title was, on the trial of the opposition, adjudged to be simulated and fraudulent, having purchased, pending the opposition, a judgment against his pretended vendor, opposed a subsequent seizure of the same slaves under the judgment under which they were first seized, claiming to be paid out of the proceeds of their sale in preference to the plaintiffs. Held: That he must be concluded by his previous claim to the ownership of the slaves on which he now pretends to hold a mortgage. If his claim to the ownership Were true, the judicial mortgage would have been extinguished by confusion. C. C. 3374.
APPEAL from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, Buchanan, J. In this case, on motion of the counsel for Barrow, it was ordered that the sheriff' retain in his hands the proceeds of the sale of certain slaves made under execution, until the further order of court; and that the plaintiffs show cause why said Barrow, as assignee of Tulane, should not be paid, in preference to the plaintiffs, the balance due on the judgment against Conner in favor of Tulane, and assigned by the latter. The court below discharged the rule.
Roselius, for the plaintiffs.
L. Janin and M. Taylor, for the .appellant, Barrow.
The judges being equally divided in «opinion, the judgment of the lower court is .affirmed, under art. 68 of the constitution.

Opinion:
Etjsms, C. J.
The plaintiffs seized certain slaves as the property of .the defendant, under an execution. Robert R. Barrow filed a third opposition, claiming to be paid out of the proceeds of the slaves in preference, to the plaintiffs, by virtue of a judgment in favor of Paul Tulane against the defendant, of which he, the said Barrow, alleges himself .to be tire'owner. Barrow had, on a previous occasion, made .an opposition to a seizure made under the same judgment by the plaintiffs of the same slaves, on the ground that they belonged to him.; and this court held his title to them to be simulated, fraudulent and void. The district court decided against the claim of Barrow, and he has appealed.
The appellant, according to his statement of the case, became the owner of the Tulane judgment, on the 31st March, 1848. The first opposition, founded on his pretended title, was then .pending in the district court, and was not adjudicated upon until May following.
There have been presented several objections to the right of the appellant to avail himself of this judgment adversely to the plaintiffs ; the most material is, ¿that he is estopped by his previously asserted claim to the ownership of the slaves, on whom he now pretends to hold a mortgage. It is clear that, if his claim to the ownership were true, the judicial mortgage as to the slaves would be extinguished by confusion, for a man cannot hold a mortgage on his own property. Civil Code, 3374. We understand it to be a rule in'the administroiion of justice, that a man shall not be permitted to deny what he has solemnly acknowledged in a judicial proceeding, nor to shift his position at will to a contradictory one, in relation to the subject matter of litigation, in order'to prostrate and defeat the action of the law upon it. Sprigg v. Bank of Mount Pleasant, 10 Peters, 257. Jackson v. Stevens, 16 Johnson R. 110. Jackson v. Murray, Id. 201. Welland Canal Company v. Hathaway, 8 Wendell, 480. Freeman v. Savage et al. 2 Annual, 269.