Champagne v. Champagne

• Decision Date: 31 January 1910
• Docket Number: 17,753
• Citation: 51 So. 440,125 La. 408
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: CHAMPAGNE v. CHAMPAGNE et al

51 So. 440

125 La. 408

CHAMPAGNE v. CHAMPAGNE et al

No. 17,753

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 31, 1910

Appeal from Twentieth Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne W. P. Martin, Judge.

Action by George J. Champagne against P. A. Champagne and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Harris Gagne and Butler & Bourg, for appellants.

J. C Briant and Suthon & Wurzlow, for appellee.

OPINION

MONROE J.

Statement of the Case.

Plaintiff alleges that his father, who was about 85 years of age, owned certain land in Terrebonne parish, which, for many years, has been cultivated as a plantation; that on August 24, 1905, he made a pretended conveyance of it, being all the property that he possessed, to his three sons, Alcide, Harry, and Ryle, retaining the usufruct for his life, the recited consideration being $ 9,701.38; that the conveyance was without consideration, was a fraudulent simulation and disguised donation, brought about by the undue influence of the so-called purchasers on petitioners' father, who was then in a very feeble condition, and bedridden by his last illness, which terminated in his death a few days afterwards that no money passed between the parties, and there was no change of possession; and that the property in question belongs to the estate of his father. He alleges, in the alternative, that, should it be found that there was some consideration moving to his father in said transaction, it was much below the fair value of the property, and the transaction is obnoxious to the objection that it was intended, and will operate, to deprive petitioner of his equal share in his father's estate. He further alleges that he was absent from the state when his father died and has learned of that event only within the past few months; that he has demanded a settlement from defendants, but in vain. He prays that the parties named be cited, and for judgment decreeing the conveyance in question to be a simulation and without consideration; that the property be decreed to belong to the estate of his father; and that he be recognized and put in possession as owner of an undivided one-fourth thereof; or, should the court find that there was some consideration, that the nature and extent thereof be determined; and that defendants be ordered to collate to the extent necessary to satisfy petitioners' just demands; and, for that purpose, that an inventory and partition be ordered. And he prays for costs and general relief.

There was an exception, of "no right or cause of action" interposed, and overruled. Defendants then answered alleging that the conveyance was made in good faith and for a sound price and was accepted by them at the earnest solicitation of their father, who was in full possession of his mental faculties.

The facts, as they appear from the transcript, are as follows: Each of the four sons had inherited from their mother (subject, as we understand it, to the usufruct of their father) the sum of $ 1,564, and plaintiff had been paid, and had left the paternal home, some ten years, or more, prior to the transaction out of which this litigation arises, and was then, and later (when his father died), living in Texas, but the defendants had not been paid, and had lived and worked upon the plantation; Alcide, the elder, occupying the position of manager, under his father's control. That being the situation, and the father being then about 84 years of age, and, as it proved, on his deathbed, an attorney at law was, on August 24, 1905, called upon by Alcide, who told him that his father wanted him to come and pass an act of sale from him to his three sons, Alcide, Harry, and Ryle, and the attorney called on the father, at his home, on the same day. He found him in bed, but with his clothing on, and able to sit up in bed, though requiring assistance in order to assume or maintain, as we understand, a sitting position, and he was informed by him that he was indebted to his three sons (there present) for their interest in their mother's estate; that he had been compelled to get them to waive their mortgage in order to enable him to borrow the money needed for the operation of the plantation, for which purpose he had imposed upon the property a mortgage which primed theirs; that he felt sure that he would not be able to pay them; and that he wanted to deed the plantation to them and wanted them to assume the debt then resting on it, and to work the place out, and pay themselves. The attorney, thereupon, prepared an act, in the form of a sale, whereby the property was conveyed to the defendants, which act was duly signed, witnessed, and recorded, all on the same day.

The act conveys a tract of land having a frontage of 12 1/2 arpents on Bayou Dularge, left bank, and an undivided half interest in another tract, with like frontage, on the right bank of the bayou, together with all the improvements, mules, carts, cattle, implements, etc., belonging to the grantor, and it also conveys "the growing crops of cane, corn and other products" on both tracts.

"The vendor reserves for himself the usufruct of the property * * * during his natural life." The consideration is expressed as follows:

"This present sale and transfer is made and accepted for and in consideration of the price and sum of $ 9,701.38, to be paid and liquidated as follows, to wit:

"(1) The sum of $ 500 is paid in ready cash. * * *

"(2) The sum of $ 4,694.73 is paid, cash, and liquidated by a receipt given by said purchasers to the vendor for said amount, the same being a full and complete settlement between said vendor and vendees for the latter's interest in the succession of their deceased mother. * * *

"(3) The assumpsit, by said purchasers, of a certain promissory note, dated July 18, 1903, drawn and executed by said vendor and by him indorsed in blank, for the sum of $ 4,000, due and payable on the 1st day of January, 1904, with 8 per cent. per annum interest from maturity until paid, and secured by special mortgage on the property herein sold, said note aggregating, principal and interest, this day, the sum of $ 4,506.65. * * *

"The purchasers as a further consideration of this sale hereby assume to pay the taxes upon the property herein sold for the current year."

It is admitted that there was no cash paid; Alcide, the only one of the defendants who appeared as a witness, testifying as follows in regard to the "cash" item of $ 500, to wit:

"We were supposed to pay for his illness, doctor, medicine, etc., but we didn't spend the $ 500. We spent about -- I have not got it here -- but in the neighborhood of $ 80 or $ 90."

The $ 4,694.73 represents the amount ($ 1,564.91 X 3 = $ 4,694.73) due the vendees as heirs of their mother. As to the item of $ 4,506.65, it appears that on January 1, 1905, there was outstanding (in the hands of a corporation, or partnership, doing business in the name of the Argyle Planting & Manufacturing Company) a note which had been given by P. A. Champagne (father of the litigants) for advances and supplies, and upon which there was due a balance of $ 2,809.35. By September 1, 1905, that debt had increased, by reason of advances and supplies obtained for the making of the crop of that year, to $ 4,502.27. The figures ($ 4,506.65) appearing in the act seem, therefore, to be slightly erroneous, the utmost that was due on August 24, 1905, being the $ 4,502.27, which the bookkeeper of Argyle, etc., Co. testifies to as the amount of the debt on September 1, 1905. In that connection, the undisputed evidence shows that (apart from corn and other things that may have been produced) the cane crop of 1905 amounted to 2,195 tons and was sold to the Argyle Company for $ 6,200.75. Concerning the condition of the crop on August 24th, and the expense of making it, F. A. Bonvillain, president and general manager of the company by which the advances were made, testifying as a witness for defendants, says:

"All of the expenses are made before August 24th. There is no expense after that, except to harvest the crop, and that is very insignificant until you start grinding. You don't require much labor to run from August to the time you go to saving the crop of cane. Q. In other words, the crop is 'laid by' at that time? A. Yes, sir."

From other testimony given by the witness and by John Le Blanc (who also acted as manager and bookkeeper of the Argyle Company) we gather that the expense of cutting, handling, and saving the crop in question amounted to $ 1,100, from which it follows that the proceeds of the crop ($ 6,200.75) were sufficient to pay a debt of the previous year together with the expense of making the crop (of 1905) and to leave a balance of, say, $ 598.48.

In other words, the profit on the cane crop of 1905 is represented by the amount of the pre-existing debt ($ 2,809.35), which was, or might have been, paid from the proceeds, plus the balance (of $ 598.48) which was left after paying that debt together with the expense of making and saving the crop, or, say, $ 3,407.83. It is true that Mr. Le Blanc testifies, at one time, that they (defendants) came out $ 1,579.59 behind that year, and, at another time, that they made a profit of $ 1,300 or $ 1,400. But he also testified that the place owed $ 2,809.35 on January 1st; that on September 1st the debt was $ 4,502.27, which amount included the $ 2,809.35; that the cane was sold for $ 6,200.75; and that it cost $ 1,100 to save the crop, after it was laid by -- from which it appears to us that $ 1,692.92 ($ 4,502.27 - $ 2,809.35 = $ 1,692.92) was used in making and laying by the crop, to which, add $ 1,100, the cost of saving it, and the total cost of making and saving is ($ 1,692.92 + 1,100 = $ 2,792.92) $ 2,792.92; and, deducting...