8 La. 441 | La. | 1835
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case turns mainly on the principles of law, settled in the case of the same plaintiffs against Cedi’s executor, decided at the present term. See ante, page 321.
, , , . 1 he lot of ground m controversy, was purchased by Poultney, of Porter and the representative of Depeyster, who had previously acquired it from the city of New-Orleans, on a ground rent. After the appointment of syndics, the corporation provoked the sale of it, for arrearages of rent, and it
Poultney purchased the lot, subject to the same conditions, ancj having obtained a respite from his creditors, in 1819, ° 1 * without paying the price, he became a mere tenant at will of the corporation, and the corporation had a right to enter. 4 Louisiana Reports, 286.
We are, therefore, of opinion, the title of Poultney was divested, and his heirs at law are not entitled to recover.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with- costs.