Case Name: School Directors, etc., vs. R. K. Anderson, Administrator, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1876-05
Citations: 28 La. Ann. 739
Docket Number: No. 6218
Parties: School Directors, etc., vs. R. K. Anderson, Administrator, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 739–742

Head Matter:
No. 6218.
School Directors, etc., vs. R. K. Anderson, Administrator, et al.
The plaintiffs have authority to prosecute this suit. They sue in behalf of the schools, and the inhabitants of the parish, and derive their authority from act No. 121 of 1861.
This is an ordinary action to dissolve a sale and recover rents, and defendants are duly cited. The portion of the petition in the nature of a rule to show cause was not acted on.
There is a cause of action fully set out. The demand to dissolve is one well known to our bar.
This is not an action of rescission, and is not in the eases provided for as contemplated by the article 1912, R. C. C.
The action for a dissolution, when a suit is noeessary to enforce the resolutory condition, is a putting in mora, as it may be met by paying the price, and the judge may even grant a delay for such a purpose.
when the purchaser fails to comply with his engagements, the resolutory condition implied in all commutation contracts takes effect, and the seller has the right to sue for a dissolution of the sale.
The defense that, because the notes given as evidence of the price are prescribed, the action to dissolve is also prescribed, can not be considered as well founded.
The resolutory action is prescribed only by ten years, and the prescription of notes given as evidence of the price-does not affect that right of action, the right to dissolve not being an-accessory to but different from the right to enforce the payment of the price, having its origin in the failure to pay the price; and resting on the principle of justice that the vendee should not retain both the thing and the price.
A restitution in integrum must be made. The vendor returns the portion of the price paid, with interest from the date of payment, and the vendee returns the 'thing with its revenues.
The judge a quo properly allowed compensation for improvements to offset rents pro tanto, but erred in allowing interest on the rents, as it was not asked for. As considerable time has elapsed since the delay up to which the judge a quo allowed rent, this court will give the rent up to the date of delivery of the property.
APPEAL from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, parish of Carroll. Hough. J.
E. H. Farrar, Montgomery & Deloney, for plaintiffs and appellees.
Leonard & Kennedy, for defendants and appellants.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Howell, J.
The plaintiffs sue to dissolve the sale of a sixteenth section to the ancestor of the defendants on the sixteenth of March, 1861,' on the ground of non-payment of the price, and to recover rent from date of sale to date of its restoration at the rate of §1250 per annum. The following exceptions were filed;'
First — That the plaintiffs are without authority to' prosecute this suit..
Second — That the suit of plaintiffs is a proceeding unknown to the law, being neither a rule nor an ordinary action.
Third — That plaintiffs' petition .discloses no cause of action.
Fourth — That the court-has no-authority to revise 'its own judgment after the time at which it was rendered except by action of nullity or rescission.
Which were overruled.
The defense is:
First — That defendants have not been put in default for the payment of the price.
Second — Prescription of five and ten years; and
Third — A demand for improvements and the portion of the price paid in case of dissolution.
Judgment was rendered dissolving the sale, giving rent , at specified rates during different periods for the cultivated land, with interest thereon, and crediting the amount with the cash payments with interest, and the cost of clearing land, and making ditches and levees, leaving a balance of $3852 90 in favor of plaintiffs, and defendants appealed.
First exception. Plaintiffs sue in behalf of the schools and the inhabitants of the parish, and derive their authority from act No. 121 of 1861.
Second — -This is an ordinary action to dissolve a sale and recover rents, and defendants wez-e duly cited. The portion of the petition in the nature of a rule to show cause was not acted on.
Third — There is a cause of action fully set out. The demand to dissolve is one well known to our law.
Fourth — The demand to revise or review a former judgment of dismissal was abandoned.
The exceptions were properly overruled.