No. 25104. | La. | Jun 4, 1923
Lead Opinion
Before stating the issue to be determined, it may be well to say that the suit first named in the title is not before us, but is now before the Court of Appeal for the first circuit; and hence, no further reference will be made to that case. It is otherwise, however, as to the case last named in the title. That case is on appeal to this court. In it, the Industrial Lumber Company alleges that it is the owner of a certain tract of land, lying in the parish of Vernon; that L.Z. Rogers and E.R. Legg are trespassing on the property, and are attempting to remove timber from it; *559 that it has protested against the acts of Rogers and Legg, but notwithstanding these protests, both threaten to continue the trespass and to remove the timber. The Industrial Lumber Company, therefore, prays that an injunction issue prohibiting Rogers and Legg from continuing to trespass on the property; from removing or attempting to remove the timber from the land; and from doing any act which would interfere with the enjoyment of plaintiff's possession; and prays that the injunction, after due trial, be perpetuated.
The defendants, E.R. Legg, one of the heirs of John Legg, deceased, and L.Z. Rogers, filed an answer to the suit. In their answer, they were joined by the remaining heirs of John Legg, deceased, who made themselves, of their own motion, defendants in the suit, instead of formally intervening therein. These heirs, together with Rogers and Legg, deny that plaintiff is the owner of the property, and aver, among other matters of defense, that those of the defendants who are the heirs of John Legg are the owners of the property; that John Legg acquired the land in 1901; that in 1902, Legg entered into a contract with the Wright-Blodgett Lumber Company, through whom plaintiff claims title, to sell that company the timber on the land; that it was not Legg's intention to sell the land itself; that this contract, which purports to be a sale, was never accepted by the Wright-Blodgett Lumber Company; that it was abandoned some years ago; and, moreover, that it contains a potestative condition, and hence is null. Defendants, therefore, pray that plaintiff's demand be rejected, and those of them, who are the heirs of John Legg, pray that they be recognized as the owners of said property, and for the cancellation of the inscription in the conveyance records of certain documents, unnecessary to mention, affecting the title to the land. *560
The lower court, after trial on the merits, rendered judgment in favor of defendants, including as such, the heirs of John Legg. Plaintiff has appealed from that judgment.
In this court plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the demands contained in defendant's answer for want of proper parties. In their brief learned counsel for the plaintiff explains his position, by saying:
"The court's attention is invited to the fact that the motion is not filed for the dismissal of the case, as such action would operate, in effect, an affirmance of the judgment from which plaintiff is appellant; but, for the dismissal of defendant's demand to annul and erase the contract for want of acceptance by the grantee, and for want of mutuality."
Counsel for plaintiff also states that those of the heirs of John Legg, who have made themselves parties to this suit, and their coheir E.R. Legg, who was made a defendant, and we take it, the remaining defendant, by alleging the nullity of the title under which plaintiff claims, and by demanding the erasure of the inscription of that title from the conveyance records, have made themselves plaintiffs in reconvention, with respect to their demand for nullity and for the erasure of said inscription, and that the purpose of the motion to dismiss, for want of proper parties, is to eliminate that branch of the case, thus leaving plaintiff's right to the injunction the only issue to be determined. Counsel for plaintiff also call attention to the fact that the defendants seek to cancel the deed from John Legg to the Wright-Blodgett Lumber Company, when that company, and other parties at interest, are not parties to the suit. Counsel then argue that, as the deed is not null on its face, it is not subject to collateral attack.
While we think that those of the defendants, who have made themselves parties to this suit, are, properly speaking, interveners rather than plaintiffs in reconvention, but be that as it may, whether they are defendants, *561 plaintiffs in reconvention, or interveners, there is no authority in law for entertaining a motion of this description. It is true, we have authority, and it is our duty, to dismiss appeals or transfer them to the proper appellate court, when we are without jurisdiction, or to dismiss them when the transcript has not been timely filed, or when a party to the record has not been cited to answer the appeal and the fault is imputable to the appellant, or for other sufficient cause, yet the rules of practice do not authorize or require us to determine, in advance of the consideration of the case on the merits, whether the answer of a defendant contains a defense, which is unavailing, or to be more specific, a collateral attack on a deed, when a direct action is necessary to annul the deed, should that be the case here, and if we should so find, then to dismiss that branch of the case, as a preparatory step to the hearing and determination of the rest of the case on its merits. And the same is true as to an intervener, or as to one who may occupy that position, whatever he may term himself, should he, in his intervention, attack a deed collaterally, when a direct action is necessary. Such a matter is properly heard when the case is presented on its merits, and no motion is necessary in order to bring the matter to the attention of the court. If the court in such a case, finds that the attack made cannot be maintained, because the necessary parties are not before it, the court will not maintain it, but will make such disposition of the matter as law or equity demands.
For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss is denied, reserving to appellant, if it should deem proper to exercise it, the right to present, in argument and brief, in the presentation of the merits of the case, its contentions as to the nature of the attack, and the want of necessary parties. *562
Addendum
Plaintiff, as the owner of a tract of land in the parish of Vernon, seeks, in this suit, to enjoin L.Z. Rogers and E.R. Legg from trespassing on said property and from removing or attempting to remove the timber therefrom.
The original defendants were joined in their answer by certain coheirs of Legg. The defense is a denial of plaintiff's ownership. Defendants aver that, with the exception of Rogers, they are the heirs of John Legg, the original owner of the property; that John Legg contracted to sell the timber, but not the land, to the Wright-Blodgett Lumber Company, through whom plaintiff claims; that the said contract of sale was never accepted by the said vendee, and was abandoned some years ago. In the alternative, defendants allege that the contract is null because it contains a potestative condition. And, as a further alternative, should the court hold the plaintiff to be the owner of the property, they pray for reimbursement of the amount of taxes paid by them.
The court below gave defendants judgment, and plaintiff has appealed.
In this court, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss defendants' demands for want of proper parties. This motion was denied, with reservations, and the case is now before us on the merits.
The facts are undisputed. It is shown by the record that John Legg, on January 25, 1902, sold to the Wright-Blodgett Company, Limited, the property described in plaintiff's petition. The consideration of the sale was $220, and the deed stipulated that the vendor, or his heirs and assigns, were entitled to a reconveyance of the land by quitclaim, if demanded within one year after the cutting and removal of the timber. The instrument was verified by one of the attesting witnesses, and was recorded February 17, 1902, in the conveyance records of the parish of *563 Vernon. The signature of the Wright-Blodgett Company by one Elijah J. Boyd was affixed to the deed in the presence of two witnesses, apparently, on January 31, 1906. Although what purports to be a notarial acknowledgment of these signatures is appended to the deed, it was not signed by the notary before whom it is purported to have been made. It was recorded, however, in the conveyance records of Vernon parish on February 27, 1906.
It is specifically admitted that the plaintiff acquired title to the property under a chain of deeds set up and supported by sufficient consideration, although the legal effect of the deed from John Legg to the Wright-Blodgett Company is disputed.
In these circumstances, it becomes unnecessary to determine the legality, vel non, of the purported acceptance of the deed from John Legg by the Wright-Blodgett Company which was recorded on February 27, 1906. The payment of the purchase price by the vendee, and the subsequent sale of the property by said vendee were acts which in themselves constituted an acceptance of the deed. The law does not require the written acceptance of an act of sale. The acceptance may result from the acts of the party in whose favor it is made in availing himself of its stipulations, or in doing some act which indicates his acceptance. Saunders v. Bolden,
Payment of the price and the assignment of the deed cures the failure of the grantee to sign the deed. Savage v. Wyatt Lbr. Co.,
The act of sale having been accepted, impliedly at least, by the vendee, the Wright-Blodgett Company, it cannot be annulled on that ground.
Defendants further dispute the validity of said act of sale on the ground that it contains a potestative condition. It is argued *564 that the agreement of the vendee, upon the cutting and removal of the timber, to reconvey the land to the vendor, his heirs or assigns, if demand for such deed be made within one year from the removal of the timber, did not limit the time within which such removal should take place, nor provide that the timber should ever be removed, but left the determination of these matters solely to the discretion of the vendee, or its assigns, thus creating a potestative condition, the execution of which was solely dependent upon its will.
We do not think this proposition is tenable. The case of Blackshear v. Hood,
On the other hand, in Shepherd v. Davis Lbr. Co.,
In Kavanaugh v. Frost-Johnson Lumber Co.,
"Until a period is fixed by agreement of the parties, or by the proper court, upon application made to it, the right to remove the timber remains in the grantee indefinitely" — citing Big Pine Lumber Co. v. Hunt,
145 La. 342" court="La." date_filed="1919-06-02" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/big-pine-lumber-co-v-hunt-7171296?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7171296">145 La. 342 , 82 So. 363" court="La." date_filed="1919-06-02" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/big-pine-lumber-co-v-hunt-7171296?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7171296">82 So. 363; Simmons v. Tremont Lbr. Co.,144 La. 719" court="La." date_filed="1919-02-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/simmons-v-tremont-lumber-co-7171168?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7171168">144 La. 719 , 81 So. 263" court="La." date_filed="1919-02-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/simmons-v-tremont-lumber-co-7171168?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7171168">81 So. 263.
In Ward v. Hayes-Ewell Co.,
Now, it is not pretended that John Legg, nor his heirs who are defendants in this case, ever applied to the court to fix a reasonable time within which plaintiff should remove the timber from the land described in plaintiff's petition, and thus put an end to the indefinite extension of time for the removal of the timber, which has remained in the grantee or his heirs, by reason of the absence in the original contract of an agreed period for said removal. Until this is done, and plaintiff has defaulted on its obligation to remove said timber as shall be interpreted and fixed by the court, defendants have no standing to annul said contract.
We think, therefore, that the judgment of the court below is erroneous and must be set aside; but defendants should be reimbursed, under their alternative demand, for the amount of taxes which they have paid on the property.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is annulled, and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, the Industrial Lumber Company, and against defendants, perpetuating the preliminary injunction herein issued against L.Z. Rogers and Ed. Legg enjoining them and each of them from disturbing plaintiff in the possession of the property described in its petition, from entering upon said property, and from removing or attempting to remove the timber, or any part of the same, from said land, and dismissing all the demands, with the exception of the claim for taxes paid, as contained in their answer, of Mrs. Eliza Legg, E.R. Legg, A.W. Legg, Jane Gray, Isadora Dyes, Annie Coleman, Matt Legg, Dorothy Calhoun, Louise Gipson, *566 and Marceline Akin; with full reservation of the right of all the defendants to apply to the court to fix a reasonable time within which plaintiff should remove the timber from the land described in plaintiff's petition and to demand the reconveyance of the land after the removal of the timber as stipulated in the original contract. It is further ordered that there be judgment in favor of said defendants and against the plaintiff in the full sum of $100, amount of taxes paid by them on said property, with legal interest thereon from judicial demand, June 20, 1921. Defendants to pay all costs.