*1
FALGOUT 35060. No. 10, 1939. Jan. Rehearing 6, 1939. Feb. Denied Rivet, Orleans, Charles of New
appellants. Harvey Peltier, Guión & Schulze Cobb Saunders, & Orleans, appellee.- HIGGINS, Justice.
Appellee filed motion to dismiss the appeal on ground this Court jurisdiction without materia, ratione al- leging that the amount involved is less $2,000, than purely incidental to the execution of a case, obtained another prays grant we a rule show cause appeal should not be dismissed. petition and answer herein
show that both the
and the de-
487, 39
These authorities
ownership of
502.
La.
So.
claiming
fendants are
point
it are
reason
and that
of land
tract
judg-
plaintiffs
$2,-
cases obtained
those
in excess of
worth
to be
is admitted
less
ments
amounts
than
al-
fact
that one of the
The mere
prop-
writs
seized
of fieri facias
*2
alleged
title
plaintiff’s
leged links
$2,000, in
erty in
of
beyond
excess of the value
lesion
judgment in a
land is a
the
satisfy
judgments: The
order
their
the value
moiety
where
suit
uniformly
Court
held
the amount
$1,000,
fixed at
ago
was
dispute
amount
the
was the
of
of the land
value
the
determine
does
and not the
value of
seized
filed nor
was
suit
time this
present pro-
action.
of this
nature
We,, therefore,
grant
refuse
rule
a
ex-
incident
ceeding
a mere
is not
nisi herein
overrule the motion to dis-
beyond
lesion
judgment of
ecution of the
appeal.
miss the
moiety
which
an action in
ownership of
tiff claims the
On the Merits.
alleging
alleged
defendants’
that the
plaintiff
instituted this
in-
upon
forged
a
predicated
thereto was
be declared the owner of a certain tract
demand
the main
strument. As
purported
to have annulled
re-
of
of
plaintiff as owner
recognition of the
option
ground
an
of
thereon on the
lease
thereof,
forgery,
registration
have
of
and to
admittedly worth
property is
and since
alleged
instrument cancelled from
juris-
Court has
this
in excess of
records.
The defendants
Lynn,
v.
plaintiff’s
materia. Ward
diction
ratione
denied
been
399;
1048,
American Well
La.
90 So.
149
and averred that his
Co., 128
Oil
Prospecting
Lillie
genuine
Co. v.
&
owners
Ltd.,
8;
Co.,
660,
property. The
55 So.
Hardeman
La.
asked for
al., 138
et
jury,
Co.
which
Const.
returned a
Caddo Concrete
a trial
verdict
v.
53,
favor,
107,
prayed for,
v.
and Stokes
So.
in his
as
La.
70
405,
Service, Inc.,
accordingly
173 La.
rendered. The
Public
defend-
Orleans
407,
application
new trial was
406,
ants’
read to speak night ment and to return that went to panions in the car and uncle; night his Thibodaux, he did return that where he that the courthouse uncle; the matter with that it discuss his record and had in the filed the release signed he did not know his had been conveyance office. registered later, until document property then rented the The defendants through when he rumors learned about trapping Waguespack for Harris town, about and went the court- trappers he and his purposes, and grazing former, attorneys, house with one of his possession of the land. took Deramee, friend, Camille Edmond L. and a together with oth- Moore Barrios, the docu- and after owners, a fence around the erected er it; ment, signed denied he in their were disturbed not pos- defendants made surrender de- plaintiff. The possession of it but he had session of ' taxes on also fendants grazed gone one cow on it and had at different times without 12, 1935, September On being ejected; signed ,Merry Bros. & a mineral lease to documents, covering seventeen different Perini, Inc., property and caused on the period many years, which were ex- registered it to be in the records hibited to him on cross-examination. in the Parish of Lafourche. plaintiff’s aunt, Mrs. October On son, upon who looked him as corroborated suit, brought present claiming that his testimony that came into the he resi- his signature to release of the entrance after dence the back the other forgery. was a room, parties had assembled front during the entire time he was the merits the trial of the case on On there, hands he frame of signed the docu- room; leading into the door front “they signed my ment and stated name” sign any papers; see him she not entered to it. He states that never him advise his she heard uncle not kept his hands frame any money sign papers leading the door into the room front suggestion, that he left her residence, uncle’s where the of his turning speak to his uncle assembled, told uncle about the matter. accept any fool” and “damn any papers; strange due these states mood, men came to his angry in an home and told him the fact he was because visit, of their offered -him he invited them residence; living into room of his tender and wanted to beat deposit accepted, offered him him out *5 so, necessary papers. do because was afraid if' he did not Schwartz and Moore trouble; signed testified in he would in the front that he that while. give explained question simply matter was to the Fal- document them; strange parties gouts receipt
these release read to money; that he Fal- Schwartz Horace see Horace told as borrowed gout paper; nephew uncle sign the from his an n left house, security, interest in the as returned that happened. paying had was Falgout discussed to Leon Horace; the account of Deramee, Camille Barrios and Edmond L. (cid:127) signed which was witnessed plain- attorneys of the former for the Moore; Leon tiff, corroborated state- Falgout’s n directly went to the courthouse ment that several the document Thibodaux, paper where the filed was signed, they was showed him at the it to records; registered in the courthouse and he that the was then leased Har- further Deramee states no that he had Waguespack ris grazing trapping J. apprising him of recollection Schwartz n purposes; possession he took signed the fact that Horace had by placing trap cattle thereon and men to of release and act that Schwartz on the lands for and about forwarded check for the sum $78 property; fenced in the entire delinquent taxes at that time and any complaint did not make impression under the he had at- was possession that he was entitled payment tended . thereof. lands; that Moore has a interest and %th Martin W. S. testified prop- has interest in the %2th. requested a loan from him for. about erty; up to take on the land the times on the property. taxes at all day that the tender was made to possessed trappers, who land two by Schwartz. the account cor- Schwartz, Waguespack Moore and stated roborated defendants’ witnesses’ state- they were talking that while Fal- attempted ments that Horace at no time gout yard, in his front to disturb them the and oc- requested up speak came that his uncle cupancy of the land. privately to him discussing before the case the, parties; with other retired Defendants also in evidence introduced documents, away signed by at some distance seventeen them and tiff, they returned, said, subjects, when reference various Horace, covering period eighteen years, presence tired of show- plaintiff signed ing trouble and wanted his that the litigation and seven Falgout,” money; par- that he times as “H. seven as then invited times J. Falgout” “Horace and seven times his residence order to ties into no in- conclusively there signa- alleged forged Falgout,” “Horace crease in value of the Three Falgout.” being signed ture “H. J. Stillson, experts, handwriting Wheaton Falgout’s of interest lack Schulhoffer, Bir- Orleans, Louis New Dr. alleged re- property after the date Stein, Elbridge W. Alabama, mingham, he did lease is the fact reflected in examined York, testified *6 not the taxes on the disputed signatures and the the admitted is land interest of the defendants in the
(cid:127) study one, through after and careful pay the did the fact that ' there- magnifying glasses enlargements and (cid:127) taxes. of, all of the opinion that were of the Falgout re- It is admitted that party signatures and the same were turned to his residence uncle’s no signature had that the denied 16, 1933, May day alleged re- of by tracing forged, either pearance of executed, him talked to lease was otherwise, the char- appearing it that controversy. he did about Thereafter signatures in all acteristics of writ- although his uncle nothing, knew that he ing those of the same author. accepted signed the had lawyer paper, by simply consulting In with the issue of lesion connection court, he could the records in the beyond moiety, testified fully apprised himself of the status question the land in had maximum least, singular, is case. It at $500; value of stated was got signing the he his information about $750, worth about trial con- through release rumors town. about from evidence that the land cluded pres- The denial of his according- of about had a value comes ence of Barrios and Deramee ly April entered time, suspicious appears because it May it is con- From that date to property was then known valuable to be happened nothing ceded that that would purposes. prospective mineral property. change the value of the therefore, is, possession difficult understand The of had who willing May 16, 1933, was ob- viously presented. a sum excess the defendants material issue defendants, land, answer, their The allege $900 addition possession deposited. particularly so This is time year proved The trapped he first thereafter. testified that the land, the answer on the lost the second averment only countervailing year witnesses. Schwartz and evi- earned $48. testimony no dence forg- would have motive clients grazing on cow Falgout’s signature he had a ing to the re- land gone on it lease, without molestation judg- between the- date of the when However, release, he first stated it is defendants. the date of the ment case, really failed trans- denied him to remember the defendants had pired. fact, reading their testi- Surely, he intended if mony they only shows would have went so far to make claim to say they nephew upon possession judg- not under did see insisted instrument, sign the court, never stated granting ment him it was not his signature. until the defendants reimbursed deposited, subject amount of to cer- discrepancy testimony between the tain deductions. of Deramee and Schwartz consisted the fact did that Deramee not remember uncle, Furthermore, telling him that make effort to signed the release and Schwartz’s state- paid return the as a consideration ment that it was he had his recollection naturally so informed “because he trial, owed, according to his still so,” easily would have done understood. own bor- testimony, originally the $250 instance, opin- For Deramee was of the rowed. delinquent ion taxes have care- members this court the check Schwartz had sent to him signatures examined the and Schwartz alleged compared tiff and them with the impression gone that he had to Der- the same one. and have reached securing amee’s office after the release of *7 handwriting conclusion three ex- as the received check from him perts were all written paid/the taxes himself. and the same author and none of opinion It is our that the verdict the characteristics of traced or jury and the of the trial manifestly court are erroneous and should filed, At the time this suit was aside. set the land conceded that assigned, For ordered, the reasons it is greatly increased value due oil adjudged decreed the verdict vicinity. in that explains boom This jury the Dis- plaintiff’s repudiating signa- motive avoided, are trict annulled and Court ture. there now be in favor apparent against Mr. and Mrs. the defendants and Falgout, because of their ages advanced elapsed sign- jecting dismissing between the demands and ing of the document and the trial of this suit cost