Lowry v. Atlantic Refining Company, 22072.
| Citation | 363 F.2d 876 |
| Decision Date | 24 August 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 22072.,22072. |
| Parties | Ruffin T. LOWRY et al., Appellants, v. The ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Lawrence E. Donohoe, Jr., Andrew J. S. Jumonville, J. J. Davidson, Jr., Lafayette, La., Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe, Lafayette, La., of counsel, for appellants.
Richard E. Gerard, Lake Charles, La., William M. Hall, Jr., Lafayette, La., Liskow & Lewis, Lake Charles, La., of counsel, for appellee.
Before WHITAKER,* Senior Judge, and WISDOM and THORNBERRY, Circuit Judges.
The parties to this appeal dispute the ownership of leasehold rights in certain oil-bearing lands in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. A primary issue at the trial in federal district court was whether the heirs of Alcide A. LeBourgeois accepted a succession under the pertinent provisions of the Louisiana Civil Code. The district court required the jury to return special verdicts on this issue. See F.R.Civ.Proc. 49(a). At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant moved for a directed verdict. F.R.Civ.Proc. 50(a). The Court considered that the motion had "considerable merit" but denied the motion "since any error could be corrected on motion for judgment n.o.v. or for a new trial". 231 F.Supp. at 777. The jury found that the heirs had not accepted the succession of Alcide A. LeBourgeois. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the special findings of the jury. The district court granted the motion and directed a verdict for the defendant from which this appeal was taken.
* * *
Proper resolution of this dispute requires careful consideration of complicated facts and a thorough study of Louisiana law. In an able opinion, Judge Richard J. Putnam, the district judge, examined the facts in the light of all pertinent Louisiana jurisprudence. This Court has carefully studied the record, briefs, and Louisiana authorities. There is little or nothing we can add to the opinion below. Lowry v. Atlantic Refining Co., W.D.La.1964, 231 F.Supp. 775. We adopt that opinion as the opinion of this Court.
The judgment below is affirmed.
* Of the United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Succession of Moore
...moment of death, and the heir is vested with seizen. La. C.C. 940; Lowry v. Atlantic Refining Co., 231 F.Supp. 775 (W.D.La.1964), affirmed 363 F.2d 876 (C.A.5 (La.) 1966). Under the Louisiana doctrine of "le mort saisit le vif," the dead gives seizen to the living. Comment Seisin in the Civ......
-
Verdin v. Thomas
...cited cases of Foster v. Spann (1930) 170 La. 1019, 129 So. 622, Lowry v. The Atlantic Refining Company (D .C., 1964) 231 F.Supp. 775; 5 Cir., 363 F.2d 876, and the cases cited therein, are inapposite to the instant case. The question of whether any of the plaintiffs, as heirs of the decede......
-
Culligan Water Conditioning, Inc. v. Heirs of Watson
...Jackson v. D'Aubin, 338 So.2d 575, 580 (La.1976) See also Lowry v. Atlantic Refining Company, 231 F.Supp. 775 (W.D.La.1964), aff. 363 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1966). The interest of Eliza Harris Watson in the strip vested in her heirs at her death. Defendants here are not prejudiced by the absenc......