Louisiana Sulphur Mining Co. v. Brimstone R. & Canal Co.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 30, 1959 110 So. 2d 207
Louisiana Sulphur Mining Co. v. Brimstone R. & Canal Co., 79 So. 324 (La. 1918).
Cited by
- Marshall v. Wells 381 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
- Jefferson Truck Equipment Co. v. Guarisco Motor Co. 250 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
- Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Chappuis 239 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
- Bruce v. Simonson Investments, Inc. 207 So. 2d 360 La. 1968
- Union Producing Co. v. Schneider 131 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
- York v. Harper 91 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
- Francois v. Alexius 82 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
- Brantley v. Tugwell 68 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
- Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. Evans 50 So. 2d 203 La. 1950
- Bonnabel v. Police Jury 44 So. 2d 872 La. 1950
- Persigo v. Johnson Co. 18 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1944
- Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ellerbe 6 So. 2d 556 La. 1942
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Brownson v. Weeks 47 La. Ann. 1042
- Weathersby v. Springfield Lumber Co. 141 La. 577
Opinion text
On Rehearing. O’NIELL, J. The defendant has pleaded the prescription of five years, under article 3542 of the Civil Code; and that is the only defense urged on rehearing. [6-8] The article declares that actions for the nullity or rescission of contracts are prescribed by five years. It has no application to an action to have decreed null a contract that is void on its face. The instrument in ques *749 tion, with the procuration or resolution attached to it, in so far as it purports to convey title to anything more than a right of way or servitude, is null on its face. In that respect, it differs from the instruments that were in contest in the two cases relied upon by defendant, viz. Brownson v. Weeks, 47 La. Ann. 1042 , 17 South. 489 , and Weathersby v. Springfield Lumber Co., 141 La. 577 , 75 South. 416 . The test, as to whether the act is only voidable or absolutely void, with that regard, is, not whether it might or might not be ratified, but whether the nullity is only latent or is apparent on the face of the instrument. A sale made by one who does not own the property and has no authority from the owner -to sell it might be ratified by the owner, but it is none the less void, not merely voidable. The decree heretofore rendered is reinstated and made final. MONROE, O. J., dissents.