Ellis v. Louisiana Planting Co., Limited

• Decision Date: 02 February 1920
• Docket Number: 22282
• Citation: 83 So. 885,146 La. 652
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: ELLIS et al. v. LOUISIANA PLANTING CO., Limited, et al

83 So. 885

146 La. 652

ELLIS et al. v. LOUISIANA PLANTING CO., Limited, et al

No. 22282

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 2, 1920

On Application for Rehearing, March 4, 1920

Appeal from Twentieth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafourche Taylor Beattie, Judge ad hoc.

Suit by Mrs. Margaret G. Ellis and others against the Louisiana Planting Company and others. From decree partly for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

Amended and affirmed.

Milling Godchaux, Saal & Milling, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Caillouet & Caillouet, of Thibodaux, and George Seth Guion, of Napoleonville, for appellees.

OPINION

DAWKINS, J.

Plaintiffs brought this suit under Act No. 38 of 1908 to try the title to the following described lands, to wit: S. 1/2 of S.W. 1/4 of section 25, and S.W. 1/4 of S. E. 1/4 of section 32, township 17 south, range 18 east.

They allege ownership, through mesne conveyances, by entries from the state under certificates No. 1285, O. S., dated December 26, 1853, and No. 107, dated January 23, 1854, subsequently covered by patents Nos. 10248 and 10250, dated December 8, 1913, in the name of Thomas H. Young.

Defendants deny plaintiffs' title and plead their own, as originating under a grant from the state to the Atchafalaya Basin levee board made by the Act No. 97 of 1890. Several other issues were raised, but most of these appear to have been abandoned, save the pleas of prescription, which we shall consider hereafter.

For clear understanding of the discussion to follow, we have drawn rough sketches of the two sections, and indicated by check marks thereon the lands claimed by plaintiffs, as well as those covered by the entries from the tract books upon which plaintiffs rely, as follows:

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

The exemplification from the state land office of the abstract of entries by Thomas H. Young from the state, sent up in the original, covers the following:

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

The copy of abstract of entries filed in the office of the recorder of conveyances of Terrebonne parish covers the identical property described in the petition, but, since the plaintiffs are relying upon the records of the state land office as showing a severance from the public domain to Young, the record in Terrebonne parish is of no benefit to them. So that in the beginning we may as well eliminate from discussion all of the property situated in section 25, as we are informed by defendants that they do not claim the S. E. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of that section, and the records at Baton Rouge show that the S.W. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of section 25 did not pass to Young under either the entry of 1853 or 1854.

Plaintiffs were decreed the owners of the first-mentioned 40 acres by the lower court, and, under the showing made by the record as just illustrated, defendants are entitled to recover the S.W. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of section 25.

The Title to S.W. 1/4 of S. E. 1/4 of Section 32.

As above indicated, the abstract of entries in the office of the register of the state land office, which under the law is an official record (Act No. 75, 1880, p. 86, § 3), showed that Thomas H. Young had entered this 40 acres of land on January 26, 1854, and for which certificate No. 107, N. S had been issued to him. However, it is contended by the defendants that this fact could only be shown by the introduction in evidence of the certificate itself, unless the plaintiffs first showed its loss or destruction, which they did not do, and only in that event would the records of the land office, or copies thereof, become admissible in evidence. This position is evidently taken upon the theory that the offering of the exemplification from the land office was for the purpose of showing that title had vested in Young as of that date; but such is not the case. The entry and receipt or certificate issued in virtue thereof do not vest in the entryman the legal title to the land, but are merely evidence of the fact that at the proper time, and on complying with all the requisites of the law, he will be entitled to a patent from the state conveying the title to the property. This receipt may or may not be recorded, as the entryman chooses, but the record which the register is required to keep is the thing to which one dealing with the property is required to look to ascertain whether or not it is still susceptible of purchase or entry. The purpose of the record is to afford notice to all those dealing with the state that property entered thereon has been removed from the class which can be disposed of by it until such time as the entry is canceled or confirmed by patent. The certified copy or exemplification from the land office was admissible in evidence, not for the purpose of establishing title in Young, or his subsequent vendees, but to show that the defendants and their vendors had notice of the fact that the property was not among that which the state owned, in the sense that it was susceptible of transfer at the time Act 97 of 1890, granting to the levee board lands "which it now owns or may hereafter acquire" within said district, was passed. Le Bleu v. North American Land Co., 46 La.Ann. 1465, 16 So. 501; Board of School Directors v. Hernandez, 31 La.Ann. 158; Franklin v. Woodland, 14 La.Ann. 188. Hence, when the register and auditor attempted to certify the S.W. 1/4 of S. E. 1/4 of section 32 to the levee board on April 26, 1901, in the belief that they had the right to do so under the said Act No. 97 of 1890, they were endeavoring to convey property which both they and the levee board were...