Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hill v. Richey, 59 So. 2d 434.

124 citing documents.

Succession of Seals 150 So. 2d 13 La. 1963
But, when this jurisprudence is considered with the articles of the Code .•announcing the law applicable to such •cases, we do not think that a strict ■interpretation should be given to the word ‘enclosures.’ ” , .
Bedingfield v. Watson 147 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Menefee v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. 141 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Thus, in the prescription of thirty years, which is acquired without title, it extends only to that which has been actually possessed by the person pleading thereto.” , , has done much to clarify by sound reasoning and logical development some of the troublesome features with respect to the necessary requirements for the establishment of title by prescription.
Baudin v. Charrier 137 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
ually, physically, and corporeally possessed by one as owner must be established with certainty, whether by natural or by artificial marks; that is, that they must be sufficient to give definite notice to the public and all the world of the character and extent of the possession, to identify fully the property possessed, and to fix with certainty the boundaries or limits thereof,” , .
Roge v. Kuhlman 136 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
Wright v. Holder, La.App.
Johnson v. Merritt 131 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Hill v. Richey, 1952, , , together with the citations listed therein.
Bayles v. McGuffie 131 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Code of Practice Art. 49; , .
Mount Pleasant Primitive Baptist Church v. Zion Hill Missionary Baptist Church 126 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
session suffices to sustain such an action especially when the land, as in this case, is' susceptible ,<?f such possession.’ ”■ And on page 513 of 73 So.2d: “The acts constituting natural possession are necessarily facts which must be established and in each case these are different.” Extensive consideration of our law with regard to possessory actions likewise appears in Hill v. Richey, 1952, , and Hebert v. Chargois, La.
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Littleton 125 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Leader Realty Co. v. Taylor, 147 La.
Watson v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. 124 So. 2d 138 La. 1960
“But we most usually understand by boundaries, stones or pieces of wood inserted in the earth on the confines of two estates.” , , 439 we discussed at length the question of whether there need be “enclosures” when the property has been actually possessed for a period of 30 years and, during the course of the discussion, said: “In the articles of our Code dealing with this prescription of 30 years, Articles 3499 through 3505, both
Hadwin v. Sledge 116 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
this observation was made: "We recognize also that under the jurisprudence a person claiming by possession alone and without title is required to show an adverse possession by enclosures, and that his claim will not extend beyond such enclosures.
Robertson v. Morgan 116 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Art. 3437; , ; Thompson's Succession v. Cyprian, La.App.
Scott v. Blanton 115 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Art. 3499, made the following comments with reference to boundaries and enclosures, in Hill v. Richey, 1952, , , 440: “ * * * But, when this jurisprudence is considered with the articles of the Code announcing the law applicable to such cases, we do not think that a strict interpretation should be given to the word ‘enclosures’.
Loeblich v. Garnier 113 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Wright v. Holder, La.App.
Sabine Lumber Co. v. Garcia 110 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Referring to the above interpretation, its meaning was further explained in Hill v. Richey, 1953, , , 440: “What the court means by ‘enclosures’, as that term is used in the numerous cases found in the jurisprudence, is that the land actually, physically, and corporeally possessed by one as owner must be established with certainty, whether by natural or by artificial marks; that is, that they must be
Watson v. Crown-Zellerbach Corp. 110 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Article 3503; , ; Sattler v. Pellichino, La.App., 71 So.
Hebert v. Chargois 106 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
251 and the succeeding jurisprudence, , ; Riseman, "The Possessory Action in Louisiana", 20 Tul.L.Rev.
Whitney National Bank of New Orleans v. Munch 91 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1956
the Supreme Court considered just such a question and quoted with approval the following language from its earlier decision in Ellis v. Prevost, 19 La.
Jacobs v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Company 82 So. 2d 765 La. 1955
782 ; , ; Scott v. Brown Paper Mill, La.App., 174 So.
Sessum v. Hemperley 83 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Richey v. Hill 84 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
This suit was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, , , which rendered judgment in Hill’s favor but remanded the case to the district court for the purpose of fixing the amount of damages.
Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. v. Broomfield 73 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
See: Hill v. Richey, 1952, , 441 , in which case the plaintiff had proven beyond all question that he had actually, physically and corporeally possessed as owner the disputed strip of land and that his possession continued to the moment of the disturbance.
Sattler v. Pellichino 71 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
in touching upon the meaning of "enclosures" stated: "We are supported in this view by the interpretation given by this court in the case of Leader Realty Co. v. Taylor, 147 La.
Parham v. Maxwell 62 So. 2d 255 La. 1952
And, while the land claimed to be acquired need not be enclosed by fences, the markings of the boundaries, whether natural or artificial, must be of such a quality as to give “ * * * definite notice to the public and all the world of the character and extent of the possession, to identify fully the property possessed, and to fix with certainty the boundaries or limits thereof.” , 59'So.2d 434, 440.