Case Name: KINCHEN et al. v. REDMOND et al. In re KINCHEN et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1924-03-10
Citations: 156 La. 418
Docket Number: No. 26413
Parties: KINCHEN et al. v. REDMOND et al. In re KINCHEN et al.
Judges: By Division B, composed of DAWKINS, LAND, and LECHE, JJ.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 418–423

Head Matter:
(100 South. 607)
No. 26413.
KINCHEN et al. v. REDMOND et al. In re KINCHEN et al.
(March 10, 1924.
Rehearing Denied by Whole Court June 7, 1924.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
I. Certiorari 4&wkey;42(6)—Affidavit to petition for certiorari held sufficient.
Under rule XVI, section 2, affidavit on petition for certiorari should contain allegations that facts set forth are true and correct, but, where affidavit was accompanied by other proofs of compliance with the rule, affidavit, “to the best of affiant’s knowledge and belief,” held sufficient.
2. Husband and wife <&wkey;>273(8) — Widow’s conveyance of land constituting community assei held not to divest husband’s heirs of their title.
Sale by widow of land constituting an asset of the community does not divest heirs of deceased husband of title to their undivided interest.
3. Adverse possession <&wkey;>7l(l) — Prescription; sale under private signature held sufficient basis for claim of title by prescription.
A sale of land under private signature, under which purchaser took and continued to exercise possession, held sufficient basis for plea of title by prescription, under Oiv. Code, art. 3486.
4. Deeds &wkey;>26 — Sales; effect of sale not altered by erroneous belief of parties as to facts necessary to> conveyance.
Erroneous belief of parties to sale of land as to what was or was not necessary to conveyance of same would not alter legal effect of their agreement which in fact transferred title.
5. Deeds <&wkey;6 — Sales; transaction held valid sale under private signature.
Transaction between parties, evidenced by a receip't, held a sale under private signature of land, valid and sufficient to transfer same under Oiv. Code, art. 2440.
6. Adverse possession <&wkey;>85(5) — Prescription; proof of contents of lost document evidencing sale of land held sufficient to support plea of title by prescription.
Proof of contents of lost document, evidencing sale of land under private signature, held sufficient to serve as basis for plea of title by prescription under Oiv. Code art. 3486.
Action by D. B. Kinchen and others against J. E. Redmond and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs apply for writ of certiorari or review.
Judgment affirmed.
M. O. Rownd, of Springfield, and Charles Elliott, of Amite, for relators.
Shelby S. Reid, of Amite, for defendants.
By Division B, composed of DAWKINS, LAND, and LECHE, JJ.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
DAWKINS, J.
Counsel for defendants, respondents in this application, has moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the affidavit made by D. B. Kinchen, one of the plaintiffs, was "that all the allegations of fact therein contained are true and correct to the best of affiants' Icnotoledge and belief." (Italics ours.)
Section 2 of rule XVI of this court provides :
"Section 2. The petition for the writ of certiorari or review to a Court of Appeal shall be verified by the affidavit of the petitioner, or, in case of his absence from the parish in which the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered, then by his attorney; and the fact of such absence shall be shown by the affidavit, which shall also show that an application for rehearing has been made to such Court of Appeal; that the rehearing has been refused; with the date of the refusal, and, that the applicant has filed in the clerk's office of such court, a no'tice addressed to the parties to the suit, of his intention to make the application to this court; and the petition shall be accompanied by an assignment of the errors complained of, by copies of the original petition and answer and other pleadings to which the application may relate, of the reasons assigned by the Court of Appeal for its judgment, of the petition for rehearing and brief in support thereof, and of the reasons, if any there be, for, and the judgment, refusing the rehearing."
While it would be better for the applicant in all cases to swear that, the allegations of fact set forth in his petition "are true and correct," yet in this particular case he has attached to the application for certiorari certified copies which show that the application for rehearing was made, that it had been refused; the date of its refusal, and that the applicant filed with the clerk notice of intention to make said application. We think this supplied sufficient evidence, when considered in connection with the affidavit as made, to show that the law and rule of this court have been complied with. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.