In re Perrault's Estate
In re Perrault's Estate, 54 So. 939 (La. 1911).
Cited by
- Garrett v. Ernest 369 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
- Lambert v. Bond 102 So. 2d 467 La. 1958
- Quatre Parish Co. v. Beauregard Parish School Board 57 So. 2d 197 La. 1952
- Egle v. Constantin 5 So. 2d 281 La. 1941
- Jackson v. Irion 200 So. 18 La. 1941
- Tillery v. Fuller 182 So. 683 La. 1938
- Gayle v. Slicer 178 So. 498 La. 1938
- Goertz v. Menard 168 So. 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Brown v. Tauzin 163 So. 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
- Schultz v. Kellar 136 So. 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
- Close v. Rowan 130 So. 350 La. 1930
- Hargrove v. Hodge 121 So. 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Heirs v. Martinez 125 La. 663
Opinion text
PBOVOSTY, J. The present suit is a rule taken by the executrix of the succession of Perrault on the defendant in rule, the St. Landry Bealty Company, Limited, to show cause why this company should not accept title to a tract of land of 1,186 acres, adjudicated to it at the sale of the property of said succession. One of the links in the chain of the title to 960 acres of the land is a tax sale, and defendant’s refusal to accept the title is because of its fear that the tax sale was invalid by reason of the insufficiency of the description of the land in the assessment upon which the sale was based. The description was as follows: “Heirs of C. L. and J. L. Williams, 960 acres, swamp land, in T. 6, B. 5 B., parish of St. Landry.” This description, mentioning, as it does, only the township, would not have identified the land, and the tax sale would therefore have been null, if the tax debtors had had any other land in that township; but this 960-acre tract was all they had, hence this description, imperfect as it was, identified their land, since it applied to it and to none other, and was therefore sufficient. Weber’s Heirs v. Martinez, 125 La. 663 , 51 South. *455 679 , and cases there cited. The evidence shows that the purchaser at the tax sale had no difficulty in identifying the land, and that he and his successors in title have been in actual possession since the tax sale. Judgment affirmed.