Case Name: BANKSTON et al. v. GILL et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-12-29
Citations: 153 La. 234
Docket Number: No. 23871
Parties: BANKSTON et al. v. GILL et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 233–243

Head Matter:
(95 South. 701)
No. 23871.
BANKSTON et al. v. GILL et al.
(Dec. 29, 1922.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1923.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Judgment <8=>588— In action to compel recognition of line held not to bar suit to correct titles or establish boundaries.
Judgment in action to compel defendant to recognize existing line as true boundary, in which the court held the survey on which it was Based was not in conformity with the title, and the plea of prescription not sustained, held not to bar action to correct errors in the titles and establish the boundaries.
2. Courts <8=^224(12) — Supreme Court held to have jurisdiction, when value shown to exceed $2,000.
In action to correct errors in titles and establish boundaries, where it was alleged, and there was evidence, that the value of the property in dispute and the correction of the errors in the boundary exceeded $2,000, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was sufficiently shown.
On the Merits.
3. Boundaries t8=»24 — First grantee held entitled to area called for by his deed.
Where owner of headright sold quantities of land therefrom, those claiming under the first sale were entitled to have the area called for by their deed satisfied by preference and priority over all others.
4. Boundaries <8fc»37(I)— Subsequent deeds and evidence held to show location of land meagerly described.
Where conveyance by owner of headright described land only as 150 acres adjoinipg another’s lands, subsequent deeds and the oral testimony held to show that the lands conveyed were in the northern portion of the head-right and reached clear across from east to west.
5. Boundaries <8=^143 — Judgment ordering lines run according to title deeds should show lines to be run.according to deeds as therein construed.
In the interest of clearness, and to settle a controversy between adjoining owners, a judg ment ordering the boundary line run according to their title deeds should add “in accordance with the views herein expressed,” there being a dispute as to the location according to tile deeds.
Appeal from Twenty-Eiftli Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; W. S. Rownd, Judge.
Action by M. L. Bankston and others against J. E. Gill and others. Prom a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
Amended and affirmed.
The action entitled Bankston v. Gill (No. 4105) mentioned in the opinion, was brought to compel defendant to recognize an existing line based on the Garahy survey, mentioned in the opinion, as the true and permanent boundary.
Clay Elliott, of Amite, for appellants.
Ponder & Ponder, of Franklinton, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
ROGERS, J.
Appellees move to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds;
(1) That the Court of Appeals has passed on this case twice.
(2) That this court is without jurisdiction, the real strip of land in controversy is the difference between the so-called Garahy survey and the survey of Tycer, parish surveyor, and that this strip is worth less than $2,000.
(3) That the joining of other parties to the suit was an insidious attempt to give this court jurisdiction, and, at the same time, an effort to try to avoid the plea of res judicata.
(4) That the real issue is over the strip o.f land included within the so-called Garahy survey, and is worth less than $2,000.
We take it that appellees were not serious in filing the ¡motion to dismiss as they have offered no argument in its support, and do not even refer to it in their brief. As it appears in the record, however, we have considered it and find no merit in the grounds urged.
1. There is nothing in the record to show that the Court of Appeals twice passed on this ease. The certified copy of the opinion and decree of the district court and the certified copy of the opinion and decree of the Court of Appeals in suit No. 4105 (Banks-ton v. Gill), which are the only references to any decisions by those courts, do not show any determination of the issues involved in this case. In that suit the only questions passed upon were whether or not the so-called Garahy survey was in conformity' with the titles of the parties and whether or not the prescription of ten years applied thereto. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was that the Garahy survey was not in conformity with the titles and the plea of prescription was not sustained.
2. The second and fourth grounds of the motion are virtually one in their effect. The petition alleges the value of the property in dispute and the correction of the errors in boundary and range exceed $2,000. This allegation is substantiated by evidence adduced on the trial of the case and by affidavits filed in this court. We think that a sufficient showing has been made to establish jurisdiction in this court.
3. There is no merit in the third ground urged in the motion.
The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.