Cited by

" , the court said" 'The defendant, urging that plaintiffs cannot assail the legality of the sale because they have ratified it, should have specially pleaded the estoppel and cannot set it up under the general issue.

In Heirs of Wood vs. Nicholls, , the court said: “The defendant, urging that plaintiffs cannot assail the legality of the sale because they have ratified it, should have specially pleaded the estoppel and cannot set it up under the general issue.

Ann. 81 ; Woods vs. Heirs of Nicholls, ), it must be that the parties assumed defendant had pleaded payment, but if not, the evidence having established that the charges had been made from original sales slips, and that defendant had not denied the correctness of the account, his ineffectual attempt to show payment relieved plaintiff of the necessity of sh

3, page 472, § 235; Wood’s ; Self’s Heirs v. Taylor, 33 La.

Ann. 769 ; ; Aronstein v. Irvine, 48 La.

582, d (1); ; Thomas v. Blair, 111 La.

it was held that where there has been no sale, or one so radically null as to be merely the simulacre of one, the suit for the recovery of the property need not be preceded by tender of the pretended price, but that equity is satisfied if the defendant is allowed in reconvention whatever amount has been paid by him

811 ; ; Bonnecaze v. Lieux, 52 La.

it was held that the possessor in bad faith is entitled: (1) To reimbursement of expenses and repairs necessary for the preservation of the property under the express terms of Civ.

Ann. 977 ; Wood’s ; Exposition Ry.

578 ; Wood’s ; also to the following decisions: Self’s Heirs v. Taylor, 33 La.

“the doctrine of antecedent tender is derived from no textual provision of the law, but rests upon equitable principles, and should be controlled by equitable considerations.” As a matter of course, *212 the plaintiffs cannot take the property out of the hands of the defendant, or even terminate the operation of the

Heirs of Self v. Taylor, 33 La.