Atchafalaya Land Co., Limited v. Dibert, Stark & Brown Cypress Co., Limited,

• Decision Date: 05 January 1925
• Docket Number: 25042
• Citation: 157 La. 689,102 So. 871
• Parties: ATCHAFALAYA LAND CO., Limited, v. DIBERT, STARK & BROWN CYPRESS CO., Limited, et al
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

102 So. 871

157 La. 689

ATCHAFALAYA LAND CO., Limited, v. DIBERT, STARK & BROWN CYPRESS CO., Limited, et al

No. 25042

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 5, 1925

Rehearing Denied February 2, 1925

Appeal from Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Assumption; Sam A. Le Blanc, Judge.

Suit by the Atchafalaya Land Company, Limited, in liquidation against the Dibert, Stark & Brown Cypress Company, Limited and others, in which the Board of Commissioners of the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District and another intervened as parties plaintiff. From a judgment sustaining a plea of prescription, plaintiff and the named intervener appeal.

Affirmed.

Burke & Smith and F. E. Delahoussaye, all of New Iberia, and J. H. Morrison, Dist. Atty., of New Roads, for appellants.

Guion & Upton and Guion & Lambremont, all of New Orleans, for appellees.

OPINION

ST. PAUL, J.

The trial judge has clearly and succinctly stated the issues herein involved (substantially) as follows:

This suit is brought by the liquidators of the plaintiff company for the purpose of annulling and canceling certain state land patents, through which is derived the title of the defendants to certain large tracts of land in the parish of Assumption; and to have it declared that said lands were included in the grant from the state of Louisiana to the Atchafalaya Basin levee board (through whom plaintiff claims) under the provisions of Act 97 of 1896, creating said levee board.

The defendants set out complete chains of title running back to the state, from whom title was obtained by patents issued for the larger portion thereof to S. Abraham on November 10, 1890, and for a smaller portion to W. R. Croxton on May 23, 1854. The Croxton patents, however, are not involved in this contest.

The Schwing Lumber & Shingle Company, claiming to be owners of the timber on said lands, have intervened herein, joining plaintiffs. And the board of commissioners of the Atchafalaya Basin levee board, who in disposing of the lands to plaintiffs authors bound said levee board to "lend itself and all its rights, powers, privileges and prerogatives to perfect the title to the lands," have also intervened herein and joined plaintiff.

The foregoing recital of the pleadings disclose the fact that the case is similar in all respects to that of Atchafalaya Land Co. v. F. B. Williams Cypress Co., reported 146 La. 1047, 84 So. 351.

The same plea of prescription of six years, based upon Act 62 of 1912, upon which the decision of the Williams Case rested, is here presented also.

Counsel for plaintiff refers to the two cases as being parallel. He contends, however, that the decision in the Williams Case is so much at variance and so irreconcilable with the prior jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that this court should disregard it and decide this case according to the former jurisprudence.

The trial judge, however, followed the Williams Case, and sustained the plea of prescription filed.

I.

In this court plaintiff says in its brief:

"If the decision in the Williams Case is now the jurisprudence, plaintiff has no case. If the court will return to the fixed jurisprudence, including the interpretation of the very contract at issue, then we tender the issue (upon the plea of prescription of six years)."

II.

It will thus be seen that this court is asked to review its decision in the Williams Case; and, in view of the magnitude of interests involved we have undertaken to do so. For this purpose it becomes necessary to make a brief recital of the facts in the Williams Case, which mutatis mutandis are the same as in this, viz.:

"The lands in controversy were acquired by the state by the swamp land grants, the Acts of Congress of March 2, 1849 (9 Stat. 352, c. 87), and of September 28, 1850 (9 Stat. 519, c. 84, U.S. Comp. St. §§ 4958 -- 4960).

"The Atchafalaya Basin levee district, embracing those parts of the parishes of Iberia and St. Martin in which the lands in controversy are situated, was created by Act No. 97 of 1890 (page 107); the eleventh section of which act declared that all lands then belonging or that might thereafter belong to the state, within the limits of the district, were thereby granted to the board of commissioners of the levee district. It was stipulated in the act that the lands of which the state had or might thereafter become the owner by tax sales should not be transferred or conveyed to the board of commissioners until the time allowed for redemption should have expired; and that all former owners of lands that had been forfeited for nonpayment of taxes might redeem their lands at any time within six months after the passage of the act, by paying the taxes, interest, costs, and penalties, to be placed to the credit of the levee district. It was further provided that 'after the expiration of said six months,' it should be the duty of the state auditor and the register of the land office, on behalf and in the name of the state, to convey to the board of commissioners of the levee district, by proper instruments of conveyance, the lands thereby granted or intended to be granted and conveyed to said board, whenever, from time to time, said auditor and said register of the land office, or either of them, should be requested to do so by said board of commissioners or by the president thereof; and that, after the recording of such instrument of conveyance in the recorder's office where the land so conveyed was situated, the title thereto and possession thereof should thenceforth vest absolutely in said board of commissioners, their successors or grantees. The statute provided that the lands should be exempted from taxation 'after being conveyed to and while they remained in the possession or under the control of said board'; and that the board should have authority to sell, mortgage or otherwise dispose of the lands in such manner, at such times and for such prices, as the board might deem proper.

"The statute was approved July 8, 1890. Within six months thereafter, that is, in September and November of that year, Pharr & Williams, a partnership composed of John N. Pharr and F. B. Williams, made cash purchases of lands now in controversy, paying the price fixed by law, at the land office, and obtained the patents in contest, which were signed by the Governor of the state and the register of the land office, and were promptly recorded in the land office and in each parish in which the lands are situated, respectively. * * *

"No instrument of conveyance of the lands in contest was ever issued to the board of commissioners of the levee district; nor was any request ever made for such instrument of conveyance, as provided in section 11 of Act 97 of 1890.

"On the 9th of July, 1900, the board of commissioners transferred to Edward Wisner and J. M. Dresser, by quitclaim deed, all of the lands that had been granted to the board by Act 97 of 1890 that had not yet been disposed of by the board, being all of the lands then owned by the board including all lands to which the board could then 'lay just claim,' and all lands that had then been sold to the state for unpaid taxes, but for which deeds had not yet been made to the state or to the board of commissioners, but not including any lands that might thereafter be adjudicated to the state for delinquent taxes."

III.

On July 5, 1912, more than six years before the filing of this suit, Act 62 of 1912, p. 73, was passed by the Legislature, reading as follows:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Louisiana, etc., that all suits or proceedings of the state of Louisiana, private corporations, partnerships or persons to vacate and annul any patent issued by the state of Louisiana, duly signed by the Governor of the state and the register of the state land office, and of record in the state land office, or any transfer of property by any subdivision of the state, shall be brought only within six years of the issuance of patent, provided, that suits to annul patents previously issued shall be brought within six years from the passage of this act."

IV.

It may well be admitted that if on November 10, 1890, when the lands herein involved were patented to Abraham, the title to said lands had already passed out of the state, then the above statute has no application; for, even conceding the entire validity and regularity of the patent, nevertheless Abraham could acquire thereby no title to the lands patented. Such a defect in title (not in the patent) could be cured only by good faithand possession under the patent for ten years. Hence the statute can apply only where the state still held title to the lands, and the patent issued irregularly, or to the prejudice of some one having an equitable interest in the land.

Clearly the Atchafalaya levee board, had, on November 10, 1890, at least an equitable interest in the lands. But, if that is all the interest it had, then it is precisely to cut off any belated action in asserting the...