Case Name: B. G. & S. R. Stewart v. Looney & Wells
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1871-07
Citations: 23 La. Ann. 624
Docket Number: No. 136
Parties: B. G. & S. R. Stewart v. Looney & Wells.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 624–628

Head Matter:
No. 136.
B. G. & S. R. Stewart v. Looney & Wells.
In this caso the facts show that tlio tutor of the minors purchased a piece of property in the town of Shreveport in "the name of the minors ho represented; that ho was much indebted at the time, and that the heirs ho represented had no means of their own which were available at the time; that at his death the lands or lots were inventoried as his property, and sold at Ms succession salo. This action is brought by the heirs (since become of age) for the recovery of the lands or lots purchased by their tutor in their name. The defense of the purchasers at the succession sale of the tutor is that the title to the heirs by the tutor is a fraudulent simulation. Held that under this state of facts, and under the ruling in the case of Frazer v. Prichard, 6 An. 728, the purchasers at the succession sale had the right to allege and show the simulation.
APPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court, parish of Caddo.
Levisee, J. JSntt & Leonard for plaintiffs and appellants.
Looney & Wells, iu person, defendants and appellees.

Opinion:
Howe, J.
This is a petitory action to recover certain lots of ground in the city of Shreveport, which plaintiffs allege they acquired by purchase from B. F. Logan on tlie twenty-eighth December, 1*63.
The defense is that the plaintiffs' title is a fraudulent simulation.
There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs have appealed.
It appears that, at the date of the act ot sale from Logan In December, 1863,, the plaintiff's were minors; that they were not living at Shreveport where their father, H. T. Stewart, resided.; that they had no property (except perhaps a very trifling sum due them eventually from the succession of their mother, which amount, if existing at all in 1863, was too insignificant to he taken into account); that H, T. Stewart had unsatisfied judgments hanging over him; that he purchased the property in the name of his minor children, the plaintiffs, with the purpose admitted to one witness, at least, of putting it in their names to conceal it from these judgments; that he, and not the minors, furnished the money to make the cash payment of two thousand dollars, and gave two notes in his children's name for one thousand each, one of which has been paid by his administrator; that he remained in possession of the property up to the time of his death in 1864; that it was inventoried as an asset of his succession; and that it was sold at succession sale as his property and purchased by the defendants.
We thiuk the defendants had the right to plead simulation as against the title and claims of the plaintiffs. This point was expressly decided in the case of Frazer v. Pritchard, 6 An. 728, and inferential in the succession of Weigel, 18 An. 49.
The only question, then, is whether the defense of simulation here set up is established, and we concur with the judge a quo, who saw and heard the witnesses, that it is; that the interposition of plaintiffs as parties in the act of sale from Logan was fictitious; that the property was really that of II. T. Stewart at the time of his death; that it was inventoried as a part of his succession; and that it was sold under •a decree of a competent court at public sale, and purchased by the defendants.
Judgment affirmed
Rehearing refused.