Lounsberry v. Hoffpauir
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 1, 1967 198 So. 2d 409; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 2, 1926 4 La. App. 87; La., April 15, 1870 22 La. Ann. 249
Lounsberry v. Hoffpauir, 219 So. 2d 559 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969).
Cited by
- Hoffpauir v. Hoffpauir 280 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
- Hoffpauir v. Hoffpauir 254 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
- Meaux v. Hoffpauir 219 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
- Hebert v. Hoffpauir 221 So. 2d 522 La. 1969
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Hoffpauir v. Hoffpauir 219 So. 2d 558
- Lounsberry v. Hoffpauir 199 So. 2d 553
- Meaux v. Hoffpauir 219 So. 2d 551
Opinion text
TATE, Judge. A mother and one son sue to evict another son from possession of certain lands owned by or subject to the mother’s usu-fruct and allegedly leased to the plaintiff son. By other pleadings and a stipulation, the issue became whether the defendant son was entitled to recognition of a lease of the lands from his mother. One issue of the litigation is that the second son, after obtaining recognition of his leasehold rights, abrogated the agreement by refusing to permit his mother to construct a fence and to make levee and canal repairs on the land. The present suit was consolidated for trial and appeal with a suit by the defendant son herein against the mother. Hoffpauir v. Hoffpauir, La.App., 219 So.2d 558 . All issues were decided adversely to the mother, and she appeals the trial court judgment recognizing the existence and incorporating the terms of the lease between the defendant and herself. See also earlier interlocutory appeal herein, La.App., 199 So.2d 553 . For the reasons stated in said consolidated opinion, we affirm the trial court judgment. See also Meaux v. Hoffpauir, La. App., 219 So.2d 551 (decided this date), deciding related issues. The plaintiff-appellant is to pay the costs of this appeal. Affirmed. On Application for Rehearing. En Banc. Rehearing denied.