Carpenter v. Cox
Decision Date | 09 December 1938 |
Docket Number | 5771 |
Citation | 186 So. 863 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Parties | CARPENTER v. COX |
Madison, Madison & Fuller, of Bastrop, for appellant.
H. S Hawthorne, of Bastrop, for appellee.
The allegations of the petition herein are, in effect, that plaintiff paid the sum of $ 965.82 to obtain satisfaction and cancellation of two liens recorded by the United States government in the mortgage records of Morehouse Parish Louisiana, securing the payment of income taxes due by himself and defendant as transferees of Cox & Carpenter, Inc. He asks judgment against defendant for one-half of the named amount.
Defendant excepted to the petition as stating no cause and no right of action. The exceptions were overruled. They are not urged here.
Answer was thereafter filed. It is in the nature of a general denial. No special defense is pleaded.
Plaintiff recovered judgment in accordance with his prayer and defendant appealed.
A stipulation of the attorneys representing the respective litigants discloses the following agreed facts:
Supplementary to the foregoing stipulation is the testimony of each of the parties. This discloses that plaintiff endeavored to pay his individual portion of the tax in order to free his real property from the recorded lien, but the tax authorities refused his offer and required payment of both claims before authorizing cancellation of either encumbrance. Defendant had knowledge of plaintiff's negotiations with reference to obtaining such removal and offered on two occasions to give plaintiff a promissory note for his portion of the indebtedness. The instrument was not accepted.
It is plaintiff's contention that a legal subrogation, under the authority of Civil Code, article 2161, occurred when he paid the entire tax to the said government, and that he is entitled to maintain this action against defendant. The pertinent portion of the mentioned codal article [Civ. Code, art. 2161] is:
The above recited facts clearly reveal that plaintiff had an interest in discharging defendant's portion of the indebtedness. The tax lien securing it operated against his immovables, and he was entitled to effect a release to prevent a possible seizure of that property and to place the title thereto in a transferable condition.
Defendant urges, however, that at the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mullins v. De Soto Securities Co.
...v. Wray-Dickinson Co., Inc., 183 La. 562, 164 So. 415, 416; Smith v. Monroe Grocery Co., La.App., 171 So. 167, 170; Carpenter v. Cox, La.App., 186 So. 863, 865. It would seem, therefore, that whether or not plaintiff and interveners knew of their claim is immaterial; it is obvious also that......
-
Orleans Parish School Bd. v. Pittman Const. Co.
...223 La. 328, 65 So.2d 783 (1953); Miller v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 42 So.2d 328 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1949); Carpenter v. Cox, 186 So. 863 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1938); Matthews v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 10 La.App. 382, 120 So. 907 (2 Cir. 1929); Hollingsworth v. Schanland, 155 La. 825......
-
LaBRUZZA v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.
...a tax case. The same language was found in Brister v. Wray Dickinson Company, supra, a Workmen's Compensation suit, and Carpenter v. Cox, La.App., 186 So. 863, 865, tax case. 5 Pretermitted is the purely superfluous discussion of whether or not a blind carpenter is totally and permanently d......
-
Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans v. Sanders, 4614
...Succession of Pizzillo, 223 La. 328, 65 So.2d 783 (1953); Succession of Aurianne, 219 La. 701, 53 So.2d 901 (1951); Carpenter v. Cox, 186 So. 863 (La.App.2d Cir. 1939). The federal courts have consistently treated the doctrine of laches as a substantive right and have insisted that its appl......