Leonard v. Lavigne
| Decision Date | 30 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 46852,46852 |
| Parties | Herbert J. LEONARD v. Floyd LAVIGNE and Mrs. Margaret Lavigne. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Ponder & Ponder, L. B. Ponder, Jr., Amite, for defendants-relators.
Reid & Macy, Robert R. Reid, Hammond, for plaintiff-respondent.
The plaintiff, Herbert J. Leonard, who was operating a service station on a corner lot situated on U.S. 190 and Thibodaux Road in Tangipahoa Parish under a written lease 1 executed by Ellis and Ruth Brown Thibodaux--in which is contained a stipulation that lessors bound 'themselves, their heirs and assigns * * * not to sell or lease all or any part of the adjoining' property owned by them to anyone who would engage in a competitive business during the period of the lease, and not to do so themselves--instituted these proceedings against Floyd and Margaret Lavigne to enjoin them from constructing, operating, or maintaining a filling station across the highway from him on land purchased from Mr. and Mrs. Thibodaux in this same tract subsequent to the date of his lease, 2 claiming this was violative of his lease contract.
The defendants excepted to the petition on the ground it disclosed neither a cause nor a right of action, and, answering, denied plaintiff was entitled to an injunction and called their vendors in warranty to insure they might recover any damages resulting from the issuance of such a writ.
The trial judge, being of the opinion that the stipulation in the lease above referred to was not a real obligation running with the land, as contended by plaintiff, but, in fact, an obligation personal to the plaintiff's lessors, maintained the exception and dismissed plaintiff's suit. On appeal to the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit this judgment was reversed and the plaintiff granted the injunction, as prayed for. See, 153 So.2d 544. The matter is now before us for a review of this decision on a writ of certiorari granted the defendants.
The appellate court, in concluding the stipulation in plaintiff's lease was a covenant running with the land, and, as such, binding on the Lavignes, relied primarily on the law universally obtaining in the common law states, and which is to the effect that 51 C.J.S. 865 § 238 under the heading 'Landlord and Tenant.'
While these rules of common law jurisprudence are sometimes persuasive, they are not controlling under our system of civil law, particularly since we have codal provisions that are to the contrary. We find that under the express provisions of our Revised Civil Code 'When obligations are attached to immovable property, they * * * are called real obligations.' Article 2010. They are 'created by condition annexed to the alienation of real property' and are 'susceptible of all the modifications that the will of the parties can suggest, except such as are forbidden by law.' Article 2013. These include 'leases and all other rights, which the owner had imposed on his land before the alienation of the soil,' and 'accompany it in the hands of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC
...only by a title.... [T]he real obligation must be clearly apparent from the title documents themselves.” Leonard v. Lavigne, 245 La. 1004, 162 So.2d 341, 343 (1964). The district court refused to enforce Winn–Dixie's grocery exclusives at the six Louisiana locations at issue because the gro......
-
Frank C. Minvielle v. Imc Global Operations, CIV.A.03-1908.
...personal rights rather than real rights. Prados v. South Central Bell Tel. Co., 329 So.2d 744, 749 (La.1975), citing Leonard v. Lavigne, 245 La. 1004, 162 So.2d 341 (1964); Harwood Oil and Mining Co. v. Black, 240 La. 641, 124 So.2d 764 (1960) overruled on other grounds by Salvex, Inc. v. L......
-
Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp.
...overrode the codal requirements that the lessee return the land to its original condition. FN57. See also Leonard v. Lavigne, 245 La. 1004, 1008, 162 So.2d 341, 343 (1964) where the court held that a covenant in a recorded lease prohibiting landlords from using adjoining property for busine......
-
Winn–Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.
...only by a title.... [T]he real obligation must be clearly apparent from the title documents themselves.” Leonard v. Lavigne, 245 La. 1004, 162 So.2d 341, 342 (1964). I previously considered whether the grocery exclusives contained in the Winn–Dixie leases co-located with the above-reference......