Widow And Heirs of Brigot v. Augustine Eulalie Isabelle Brigot, Widow of Sisos

• Decision Date: 17 June 1895
• Docket Number: 11,767
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: WIDOW AND HEIRS OF FLORE NICOLAS BRIGOT v. AUGUSTINE EULALIE ISABELLE BRIGOT, WIDOW OF D. F. SISOS

17 So. 825

47 La.Ann. 1304

WIDOW AND HEIRS OF FLORE NICOLAS BRIGOT v. AUGUSTINE EULALIE ISABELLE BRIGOT, WIDOW OF D. F. SISOS

No. 11,767

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 17, 1895

Argued June 5, 1895

APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans King, J.

G. V Soniat, for Plaintiffs, Appellants.

Charles Payne Fenner, Curator ad hoc, for Defendant and Appellee.

Charles F. Claiborne, for Intervenors, also Appellees.

BREAUX J. NICHOLLS, C.J., absent.

OPINION

BREAUX J.

The plaintiffs are Petronille Daulin, widow of Flore Nicolas Brigot, Eugenie Marguerite Godeberte Brigot and Maurice Albert Brigot.

The husband of the first named plaintiff was the only issue of the marriage in 1813 of Nicolas Augustin Brigot and Adele Martin Godeberte.

He abandoned his wife in France and came to New Orleans.

He married here on September 12, 1816, Anne Meullanotte, during the existence of his wife, Adele Godeberte, (who died in 1832.)

He acquired property and returned to France, where he died testate on the 27th December, 1847, leaving all his estate to Anne Meullanotte, and disregarding entirely his son, Flore Nicolas Brigot, to whom he did not leave anything by his will. An act of compromise was effected in France between this son and Anne Meullanotte in 1848.

Under the terms and conditions of this compromise the latter went into possession, as owner of a property No. 133 Royal street, of this city, and the former, Flore Nicolas Brigot, became the usufructuary of two other properties, 131 and 135 same street, and two natural daughters of Flore Nicolas Brigot, viz.: the late Adelaide Marie Brigot and Augustine Eulalie Isabelle Brigot, widow by Dominique Felix Sisos, the defendant here, became the owners of the property of which he, F. N. Brigot, had the usufruct.

Flore Nicolas Brigot married Petronille Daulin, one of the plaintiffs and appellants. It was stipulated in their contract of marriage that the survivor should inherit all the property of the predeceased party contracting.

The issue of this marriage were Eugenie Marguerite Godeberte Brigot and Maurice Albert Brigot, and appellants here.

Flore Nicolas Brigot died in 1870. His widow was appointed administratrix of the succession in France, but never qualified in Louisiana. Mrs. D. F. Sisos and her sister, Adelaide Brigot, who died since, and from whom the former inherited as universal legatee, claimed the two properties in Louisiana, which they alleged was theirs in absolute right, since the death of their father the usufructuary.

Mrs. Petronille Daulin, Widow F. N. Brigot, brought an action in France against Mrs. D. F. Sisos and her sister Adelaide. She contended that the act of compromise in 1848 was void; that these defendants were the adulteress children of Flore Nicolas Brigot; that legitimate children were born since the date of the donation; that Anne Muellanotte was an interposed person, and that the testator could not, under the law, dispose of the ownership of the property and at the same time retain the usufruct.

In this suit the act of compromise of 1848 was declared null and void by a judgment of the court of first instance, which was subsequently affirmed by the court of appeals. There were other proceedings in the court of France, at dates subsequent, all tending to affirm the correctness of the first judgment.

In 1893 the plaintiffs brought suit here for a recognition of their alleged rights under their judgment rendered in France, and fixing, it is urged, the status of all parties concerned.

This would involve a confirmation of all the proceedings of the foreign tribunals regarding the rights of the parties, and would necessitate, were plaintiffs' prayer granted, the rendering of a judgment decreeing that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in the same proportions as was decreed by the courts of France; a partition would have to be ordered and the defendants condemned to account for rents.

The defendant was cited through a curator ad hoc. He pleaded:

No cause of action.

Res judicata.

The last ground is based upon a judgment rendered in 1876 (in a suit brought in 1872). The suit was brought, in the first place, against C. Guillet, a person in possession.

In 1873 the late Fergus Fuselier, a regular practitioner at this bar, filed an answer as counsel for Widow Flore Nicolas Brigot (plaintiff in the case before us), as owner of half of the community and usufructuary of the remainder, also as tutrix of Eugenie Marguerite Godeberte and Maurice Albert, issue of her marriage with Flore Nicolas Brigot.

The petition and answer in this suit presented issues for decision similar to those argued and decided in the courts of France in the cases to which we have before referred.

Different views were entertained by the courts of Louisiana from those held by the courts of France.

We have substantially given account of the conclusion reached in the courts of the latter country (France). In the courts of the former, the plaintiffs in the suit, the defendants here, were recognized as the owners of the lots here in question. The decision was pronounced by Judge Lynch, of the District Court. The parties cast did not prosecute an appeal.

It follows as a conclusion that by thus recognizing the title as vested in them, validity was given to the act of compromise in question.

The plaintiffs deny that the judgment pleaded as res judicata is of any validity, and seek to have it treated as an absolute nullity on the ground that one Guillet, who had been cited, but who had no authority to stand in judgment, answered, disclaiming title.

Subsequently Cavaroc & Son were cited as agents, who presumably employed the attorney who appeared for the defendants, but of this there is no evidence of record.

The attorney, however, as we have before stated, appeared for the defendants, and not in the name of their agents. They allege here that the agent and the attorney were not authorized to represent the defendants in that suit, and that, if he was authorized, the attorney discontinued the reconventional demand.

To sustain their defence against the plea of res judicata, the plaintiffs offered the affidavit, duly authenticated, of Widow Brigot (nee Daulin), declaring that she had not authorized Fuselier, attorney, to represent her, as defendant. The court ruled that the affidavit was ex parte and inadmissible. Creditors of the defendant, Lamarque & Co., intervened in the case now before us for our decision, and alleged that they were in possession under an antichresis granted by defendant in 1879. They also pleaded res judicata.

The District Court sustained that plea and dismissed plaintiffs' suit.

From the judgment the plaintiffs prosecute this appeal.

Without direct proceedings to set aside the judgment plaintiffs were without right to question its validity. There is not an allegation in plaintiffs' suit assailing the validity and binding effect of the judgment.

Plaintiffs remained silent during many years; the estrangement between them and the title they now claim was complete. The judgment rendered contradictorily with co...