Haas v. Fontenot

• Decision Date: 28 April 1913
• Docket Number: 19,845
• Citation: 132 La. 812,61 So. 831
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: HAAS v. FONTENOT et al. In re FONTENOT et al

61 So. 831

132 La. 812

HAAS v. FONTENOT et al.

In re FONTENOT et al

No. 19,845

Supreme Court of Louisiana

April 28, 1913

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A duly recorded sale of the N. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 23 conveys no notice to third persons of the intention to sell the S. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4, section 23; and a reference in the deed to an unrecorded receiver's receipt has no effect against third persons.

Latent misdescriptions in a deed of sale cannot be corrected to the prejudice of a subsequent purchaser, buying on the faith of the record. Under the Civil Code and jurisprudence of this state notice is not equivalent to registry.

Garland & Garland, of Ville Platte, and Pavy & Fontenot, of Opelousas, for applicant.

Leon S Haas and E. B. Dubuisson, both of Opelousas, for respondents.

OPINION

LAND, J.

This is a petitory action to recover the S. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 23, township 4 south, range 1 west, in the parish of Evangeline. Plaintiff's title, as recorded, called for the N. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 23, township 4 south, range 1 west.

Defendant's title, as recorded, called for the S. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 23, township 4 south, range 1 west.

Both parties claimed under Cornelius B. Fontenot, who entered the tract on April 26, 1899, in the United States Land Office in the city of New Orleans.

On October 27, 1899, Fontenot sold to Samuel Haas the N. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of said section, 'being the same land by the vendor acquired from the United States as per final receipt No. 8,463, dated April 26, 1899.'

On June 2, 1900, a patent issued to said Fontenot for S. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 23, etc.

On October 22, 1906, Fontenot sold the same tract of land to J. E. Walters, and further described 'as being the same land by vendor acquired of the United States by the homestead entry, as per patent dated June 2, 1900, and homestead certificate No. 8,463.'

The patent and the deed to Walters were recorded on October 25, 1906, in the office of the recorder of the parish of Evangeline. Walters sold one-half of the tract to Emma C. Fontenot, wife of Cornelius B. Fontenot, who in 1907 sold to E. P. Z. Fontenot, who in 1909 purchased the other half from J. E. Walters.

The plaintiff obtained judgment for the land sued for in the district court, and the defendants appealed.

In the Court of Appeal the judgment was affirmed as to title in the plaintiff, but the case was remanded for the purpose of enabling the defendants to prove that the title was held by the plaintiff, not as owner, but as security for a debt.

The case is before us on a writ of review sued out by the defendants.

The Court of Appeal held that the action was not to reform the deed, but was petitory pure and simple, and that the question was whether plaintiff's title, as recorded, was such as to put the public upon inquiry. The Court of Appeal answered the question in the affirmative for the following reasons:

'The receiver's receipt No. 8,463 shows that this was the only land covered by the vendor's entry as homestead. It is in proof that the vendor had no other land in the section, township, and range given than that which he undertook to and did convey to the plaintiff.'

'But, argue the defendant and the warrantor, receiver's receipt No. 8,463, was not of record at the time of their purchase, and there was nothing of record to convey knowledge to a third person that the S. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 was intended to be conveyed, instead of the N. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of said section, as set forth in the act of sale from Cornelius B. Fontenot to the plaintiff.'

'It is true that the recorder's receipt was not of record, but specific reference was made to it in order to identify the land conveyed as being the same land acquired by the vendor as per said receiver's receipt. Here was a means furnished by which the inquirer could have informed himself as to the land which said certificate or receipt covered. If it be contended that this was insufficient in law to put the defendant on inquiry, the fact remains that there was of record, at the time of his purchases, the patent from the government, issued and based upon the final receiver's receipt or homestead certificate No. 8,563, was extant on the conveyance records of the parish, and made full proof that the only land covered by the patent and the receiver's receipt was the land in litigation, and no other.'

When the defendant made his purchases, his vendors were in possession of the land and delivered the patent to him. His first purchase was made on the report of an expert that the title of Mrs. Emma C. Fontenot was good. On the strength of this report he borrowed money to pay a part of the purchase price. The deeds to the defendant contain no references to the receiver's receipt or to the patent.

Plaintiff's title shows a sale of the N. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 23. This description is mathematically certain and calls for no extrinsic evidence to explain the intention of the parties as to the tract intended to be conveyed. The parties declared that this N. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 was the same land covered by a certain United States receiver's receipt which had been issued to the vendor, and was presumably in his possession at the time of the sale. This receipt was not recorded. The description of the land sold was written in full by the notary. There was nothing on the face of the deed to suggest error or ambiguity of description. The reference to the unrecorded receipt conveyed no notice to third persons. The patent, recorded seven years later, disclosed a...