Adams v. Brownell-Drews Lumber Co., Ltd.

• Decision Date: 19 June 1905
• Docket Number: 15,510
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: ADAMS et al. v. BROWNELL-DREWS LUMBER CO., Limited

38 So. 957

115 La. 179

ADAMS et al. v. BROWNELL-DREWS LUMBER CO., Limited

No. 15,510

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 19, 1905

Appeal from Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville; Edward Blount Talbot, Judge.

Action by Sitgreaves Adams and others against the Brownell-Drews Lumber Company, Limited. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Edward Simon, for appellant.

Clarence S. Hebert, Alex. Hebert, and Henry Denis, for appellees.

OPINION

MONROE J.

Statement of the Case.

The present plaintiffs, heirs of Christopher Adams and his wife heretofore brought suit to recover certain land which had been patented to H. E. Lawrence, but which was shown to have been acquired by Lawrence for the joint account of Adams and himself, and Lawrence's interest in which was believed to have been acquired at sheriff's sale by the widow of Adams. The evidence of record, however, consisting of an acknowledgment by Lawrence and sheriff's deed, describe the land acquired by Lawrence for joint account and by Mrs Adams as lying in range 12, whereas the land patented to Lawrence lies in range 11. In that condition of the title the defendant, through mesne conveyances, acquired the land, as called for by the patent, from the heirs of Lawrence, and was in possession for something less than 10 years before plaintiff's original suit was brought. On the appeal in that suit it was held (quoting from the syllabus) that:

"Whilst an error in the description of real estate may be corrected as between the parties to the act in which it appears, a different case presents itself after a third person, acting in good faith, acquires rights to the property erroneously described. The error cannot be corrected to the prejudice of such rights."

And in concluding the opinion it was said:

"These conclusions would seem to point to the absolute rejection of plaintiffs' demands; but it is plain that they have been unjustly deprived of their property, and, whilst the evidence before us does not justify us in holding that the defendants are to blame, the fact that Drews [who is a member of the defendant company, and its immediate author in title, by whom the land was acquired from the heirs of Lawrence] was not examined and did not testify as a witness induces us to leave the matter open for further investigation, should the plaintiffs think proper to avail themselves of the opportunity."

And the judgment was accordingly made one of nonsuit. Adams v. Drews, 110 La. 456, 34 So. 602.

The plaintiffs then brought the present suit, upon the trial of which Drews was...