Brian v. Bonvillain

• Decision Date: 04 January 1904
• Docket Number: 14,129
• Citation: 111 La. 441,35 So. 632
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: BRIAN v. BONVILLAIN et al

35 So. 632

111 La. 441

BRIAN v. BONVILLAIN et al

No. 14,129

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 4, 1904

See concurring opinion of PROVOSTY, J., 35 So. 640.

LAND J. BREAUX, J., recuses himself, having been of counsel for the Callery heirs in matter of the settlement of the succession of their grandfather Sigur.

OPINION On Rehearing.

The pleadings and facts in this case have been so fully and clearly stated in the two opinions heretofore handed down that repetition would be useless.

In the last opinion the court reached the conclusion that J. Oscar Sigur, as heir of his grandmother, was entitled to one undivided third of her estate; that his interest as heir in the property in dispute had been acquired by plaintiff, a bona fide purchaser; and that the title of Sigur in this property had not been divested by the estoppel pleaded by defendants.

The decree, however, relegated the plaintiff to an action of partition, in which the rights of the parties as to fruits, revenues, improvements, and similar demands are to be liquidated and settled, and, until this was done, maintained the defendants in actual possession.

The decree further remanded the cause to the district court, to be there proceeded with by further proceedings according to law and the views expressed in the opinion, with the right of parties to amend their pleadings.

A rehearing was granted, and the case was argued and submitted on additional briefs.

In considering this case, it is well to restate the issues raised by the pleadings in the court below. The action is petitory, plaintiff claiming title from J. Oscar Sigur. The answer admits that Sigur once had title by virtue of his heirship, but avers that by reason of the facts set up in the answer the said Sigur was estopped to claim any part of the real estate sued for, had no such claim, and could and did pass none to the plaintiff in the suit. The answer further avers that by the act of settlement of May 14, 1894, the coheirs "acquitted each other mutually and fully of all demands they had against each other by reason of their being coheirs of said Mrs. Gracieuse Cornen, deceased."

By agreement of counsel the question of rents, improvements, and taxes was deferred for future litigation.

Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for an undivided ninth interest in the lands sued for, together with a like interest in the buildings, improvements, and immovables by destination thereon, and it was further decreed that plaintiff be placed in possession of said interest as owner.

The answer does not suggest or intimate that Sigur owed collations to his coheirs, or that his interest as heir in the real estate was less than one-ninth.

On the contrary, the answer sets up a full settlement of the demands of the coheirs against each other, and pleads that defendant acquired the third interest of Sigur by estoppel.

The judgment of July 13, 1894, recognized Sigur as entitled to one-third of the estate, and to the possession of his proportion of the entire estate, "of whatever the said estate may consist."

The question raised by the pleadings is one purely of title, with the onus on defendants to prove that the title of Sigur was divested by estoppel as alleged.

His title came from the same source as the title conveyed by Mrs Noveret to defendants.

The decision hinges on the sole question of estoppel, and on the further question whether an estoppel not of record can affect a bona fide purchaser.

We are of opinion that there was no estoppel against J. Oscar Sigur because the transactions of May 14, 1894, cannot be explained on any other hypothesis than ignorance on the part of Sigur Mrs. Noveret, and the defendants as to Sigur's interest...