Stille v. Shull
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., September 4, 1962 144 So. 2d 6; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., July 1, 1884 2 McGl. 98; La., July 15, 1871 23 La. Ann. 608
Stille v. Shull, 41 La. Ann. 816 (1889).
Cited by
- Randy Lacombe v. Marvin F. Carter, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
- Lacombe v. Carter 975 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
- Triche v. Brownell-Drews Lumber Co. 141 So. 44 La. 1932
- River & Rail Terminals, Inc. v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. 130 So. 337 La. 1930
- Taylor v. Williams 110 So. 100 La. 1926
- Gould v. Bebee 63 So. 848 La. 1913
Opinion text
Application eor Rehearing. In the application for rehearing our attention is called to the diction in the opinion which sajrs: “ If there were any complaints they are cured by the prescription of five and ten years. Possession was not necessary, as contended by defendant, to support the plea.” As this was unnecessary to the determination of the issues presented in the case, and the decision stands without it, we have stricken it from the opinion. We have also corrected the misdescription of the land in the decree. Rehearing refused.