Case Name: Joseph Vigo vs. A. E. Carlon, Administrator
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1896-02-26
Citations: 48 La. Ann. 665
Docket Number: No. 5467
Parties: Joseph Vigo vs. A. E. Carlon, Administrator.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 665–667

Head Matter:
No. 5467.
Joseph Vigo vs. A. E. Carlon, Administrator.
When a plaintiff has been, successful in a possessory action and the defendant appeals therefrom, the appeal will not be dismissed because the defendant since his appeal has resorted to the petitory (action — the bringing of such a suit does not amount to a voluntary execution of the judgment appealed from, nor abandonment thereof.
The judgment in a petitory action carries with it both the instant right to the possession of the property and the title to the same.
If the plaintiff in such action permits a party, a stranger to the litigation who purchased the property during the pendency of the suit, to remain inpossession for more than a a year, peaceably and uninterruptedly his possession must be protected.
APPEAL from the Superior District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Hawkins, J.
J. Ad. Rosier, Felix P. Poehé, Joseph F. Poohé and Charles J. Théard for Plaintiff, Appellee.
A. & W. Voorhies for Defendant, Appellant.
Submitted on motion to dismiss November 30, 1874.
Opinion handed down December 14, 1874.
Rehearing on motion to dismiss refused February 10, 1875.
Argued and submitted on merits February 26, 1896.
Opinion handed down March 23, 1896.

Opinion:
ON Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Wyley, J.
The plaintiff having cast the defendant in this posses-sory action complains that since the defendant took the appeal herein he has brought a petitory action against, the plaintiff in the Fourth District Court for the same property, and inasmuch as pos-sessory and petitory actions can not be cumulated without consent (C. P. 55) the plaintiff contends that the suit thus brought by the defendant pending this appeal amounts to a voluntary execution of the judgment appealed from, or an abandonment thereof. He accordingly moves to dismiss the appeal for the reason stated. The position is not maintainable. Art. 55, C. P., declares that: " Petitory and possessory actions shall not be cumulated or joined together, except by consent of parties. Therefore he who is sued in a pos-sessory action can not bring a petitory action until after judgment shall have been rendered in the possessory action, and until, if he has been condemned, he shall have satisfied the judgment given against him."
It may be that pending the controversy in this possessory action against him, the defendant had no right to bring the petitory action complained of, but the remedy was an exception to the suit, and the action of the court below on the exception to the petitory action could be revised on appeal by this court. A second suit having the same cause of action might well be barred in the court where it was brought by the plea of lis pendens.
But having set up in a new suit the same cause of action would be no ground to dismiss the first suit pending an appeal.
The bringing of a new suit pending this appeal, in contravention of Art. 55 C. P., can not be seriously regarded as a voluntary execution of the judgment or an abandonment thereof.
The motion is denied.