Court Opinion

ID: 9679918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:12:51.335944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:05.107853
License: Public Domain

BARHAM, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent, being of the view that our original opinion is correct. I voted for the rehearing for clarification of the applicant’s strongly urged contention that we had incorrectly made R.S. 9:2721 (registry of instruments affecting immovables) applicable to movables. The court on first hearing stated the proposition, and in its citation of cases and of Yiannopoulos, Civ.il Law of Property, appropriately disposed of the plaintiff’s contention. R.S. 9:2721 states: “No * * * surface lease * * * or other instrument of writing relating to or affecting immovable property shall be binding on or affect third persons or third parties unless and until filed for registry * * (Emphasis supplied.) The separation of the ownership of the standing crop from the ownership of the land by lease is a surface lease “relating to or affecting immovable property” within the contemplation of R.S. 9 '.2721, for it changes the character of the property from immovable to movable, and therefore the provisions of the lease have no effect upon third parties except through the notice required under R.S. 9:2721.
I respectfully dissent, adhering to our conclusion on first hearing.
HAMITER, SANDERS, and BARHAM, JJ., are of the opinion a rehearing should be granted.