Court Opinion

ID: 9859296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 19:39:15.164741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:27:38.055708
License: Public Domain

PONDER, Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the holding in the majority opinion because I am of the opin*779ion that the deed conveyed the property in ■dispute and that the Levee Board was in good faith when it purchased it.
The record shows that the lands belonging to Julia F. Edgecombe and the heirs was bounded above by the lands then owned by Edgar Williams, designated as Lot No. 90 in the Brodtmann plats or maps. The lands were bounded below by lands then owned by Haspel & Davis Co., Ltd., designated on these maps and plats as being Lot No. 92. The lands lying between these two lots is the lands owned by Julia Edgecombe and the heirs and is designated as Lot No. 91. The description in the deed states that the lands were bounded on the south by the lands of Aaron Davis, who thereafter sold his lands to Haspel & Davis Co., Ltd. The description in the deed recites that the lands are bounded above by the lands of W. H. Edgecombe, who later sold his land to Edgar Williams, and below by church property, which was later owned by Haspel & Davis Co., Ltd. In other words, the lands of Julia Edgecombe and the heirs, designated as Lot No. 91, was bounded above by Lot No. 90 then owned by Edgar Williams and bounded below by Lot No. 92 then owned by Haspel & Davis Co., Ltd. The Levee Board acquired these two lots, No. 90 and No. 92, from the then owners and the property in dispute could therefore only be contained in Lot No. 91. When Lot No. 91 was conveyed to . the Levee Board, it contained all the prop•erty in dispute. The majority opinion questions the accuracy of the Brodtmann maps or plats and states they are not supported by surveys. I find in the record maps and plats of a survey made by Frank T. Payne, a civil engineer, wherein all of the lands in the area of the spillway were surveyed and platted. The Brodtmann maps and plats, on comparison, show that they were copies following the delineations of the maps of the Payne survey. The Payne survey was accepted and recognized by this Court in the year 1927 in the case of Board of Levee Com’rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Orangedale Colony Co., 164 La. 77, 113 So. 772 in an expropriation suit brought by the Levee Board involving lands in the spillway area. It was stated in that case that there had been no survey made previous to the Payne survey and that the acreage stated in the patent was nothing more than an estimate and the court held that the Levee Board must pay for the acreage shown by the survey. The Payne survey shows that Lot No. 91 was owned by Julia Edgecombe and was bounded above by Lot No. 90 owned by Edgar Williams and below by Lot No. 92 owned by Haspel & Davis Co., Ltd. The Brodtmann map is to the same effect.
It does not appear that any survey of this property was made prior to the Payne survey. It appears that all of the property acquired in the spillway was acquired in accordance with the survey or maps and plats taken from the survey which were referred to in the deeds and was referred to and recognized in .the deed under *781consideration. The survey was made with the view of locating the property owned by the various property owners in that area and the property owners sold and the Levee Board acquired the property in accordance with the survey.
The majority opinion does not refer to the fact that Leonard F. Edgecombe and Aaron A. Edgecombe, two of the heirs, signed the deed as witnesses and insofar as they are concerned it would appear that they acquiesced in the transfer of the land.
The majority opinion refers to what is termed an abstract made by the Clerk of Court. The record shows that it was no abstract of title but merely certificates showing the description of the property in the deed to Julia Edgecombe, that it had not been alienated, that it was free from mortgage, to whom it was assessed and who had paid the taxes. The opinion of the general counsel based on this information could not be considered a title opinion. It appears from the opinion of the general counsel that the so-called abstracts, made of all the property in the spillway, is contained in Vols. 41 to 43, inclusive, of the records of the Levee Board. There is nothing in this record to show that any examination of the title is revealed therein. The burden of proof is upon the heirs to show that the Levee Board was in bad faith and they have failed to sustain this burden. I believe that the plea of ten years acquisitive prescription should be maintained and, therefore, respectfully dissent.