Court Opinion

ID: 9832943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:19:10.636018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:55.927528
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[7] On motion for rehearing, appellant insists that inasmuch as this court held that the three years’ statute of limitation should not have been given in charge to. the jury, we should have reversed this case. The three years’ statute is based on title connected with the sovereignty of the soil though some of the muniments be irregular. R. S. art. 3341. There was no pretense on the part of appellee of connecting title with the sovereignty of the soil, unless the land in controversy was a part of the Ashworth survey, and, if it was, appellee had a perfect 'title without reference to limitation. On the other hand, if we are to suppose that the jury, or any member thereof, based their or his verdict upon limitation under claim of paper title, not connected with the sovereignty of the soil, then the finding must have been that appellee was holding under the deed from May, and, if so, the undisputed evidence was that appellee had been in possession of the land purchased from May over 40 years; and hence, if the verdict of the jury was based on limitation, it must have been the same if the three years’ statute of limitation had not been given in charge.
In fact, under the undisputed evidence as to ten years’ limitation, it would not have been error for the court to have peremptorily instructed a verdict for defendant. This being the case, whatever errors, if any, may have been committed as to other issues become immaterial.
Motion overruled.