Cocke v. Spangler

105 So. 413, 159 La. 409, 1925 La. LEXIS 2249
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJuly 13, 1925
DocketNo. 26863.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 So. 413 (Cocke v. Spangler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cocke v. Spangler, 105 So. 413, 159 La. 409, 1925 La. LEXIS 2249 (La. 1925).

Opinion

BRUNOT, J.

This is a petitory action. The lands involve^ in this suit form a part of Cypress Island, in the parish of St. Martin.

Defendants filed an exception of no right or cause of action to plaintiffs’ petition, a plea of prescription acquirendi causa, and an answer to the suit. The exception and plea of prescription were referred to the merits. The case was tried, and judgment was rendered overruling the exception and plea of prescription and decreeing the plaintiffs to be the true and lawful owners of the property. From this judgment the defendants appealed.

The learned trial judge found that the exception of no cause of action was leveled at plaintiffs’ claim to fractional sections 31 and 32 in township 14 south, rangb 11 east, on Cypress Island, and as article 2 of the petition alleges that Joseph T. Hawkins acquired these fractional sections from the United States Land Office at Opelousas, La., on August 7, 1844, as per certificate No. 4184, and as other articles of the petition allege that plaintiffs are the heirs .of Joseph T. Hawkins, the petition sets forth a cause and right of action. We concur in this ruling because on the trial of an exception of no cause of action the allegations of the petition are taken as true.

The record discloses that by the proc *411 lamation of President Monroe, issued on February 29, 1820, pursuant to an act of Congress passed on March 1, 1817 (3 Stat. 347), Cypress Island, including the lands involved in this suit, was exempted from all future sales of public lands of the United States, and was reserved by the government to supply timber for naval purposes. Under this reservation, the title to the lands remained in the United States government until February 16, 1923, when Congress apprpved and passed an act to authorize the .Secretary of the Navy to certify to the Secretary of the Interior, for restoration to the public domain, all reserved lands in the state of Louisiana not needed for naval purposes. This act includes the lands involved in this suit, and it specifically confirms the titles thereto of the original entrymen, their heirs, assigns, and legal representatives. As the title to the lands remained in the United- States government until 1923, and as prescription cannot run against the government, the learned trial judge correctly overruled defendants’ plea of prescription. Moreover, the evidence does not establish such possession by defendants as the law requires as the basis for prescription acquirendi causa. Such possession as defendants had began and continued by reason of the employment of one of them by the government as lighthouse tender on Cypress Island. It was during this employment and occupancy that defendants acquired the title set up in their answer. It is not necessary to discuss this possession, because prescription acquirendi causa cannot run against any part of the public domain. State v. Buck & Fruet Co., 46 La. Ann. 656, 15 So. 531; Bres v. Louviere et al., 37 La. Ann. 736.

The act of Congress approved February 16, 1923 (42 Stat. 1258), specifically confirmed to the original entryman, their heirs, assigns, and legal representatives, the following entries:

“In township fourteen south, range eleven, east, on Cypress Island—fractional sections thirty-one and thirty-two, Joseph T. Hawkins, August 7, 1844; certificate numbered four thousand one hundred and eight-four.
“In township fifteen south, range eleven east, on Cypress Island—lot one of section six and lots one and two, section five, Johp Dawson, December 26, 1843; certificate numbered four thousand one hundred and fifteen.
“Lots three", four, and five, section five, and lots two, three, four, and five, section six, John D. Alston, December 26, 1S34; certificate numbered four thousand one hundred and fourteen.”

The lands described in the foregoing entries and certificates are the lands involved in this suit. It appears that the deeds to said lands were recorded in the parish of .St. Mary, but certified copies of these deeds were recorded in St. Martin parish in 1923.

The record discloses that Joseph T. Hawkins never disposed of fractional sections 31 and 32, which he acquired August 7, 1844, by certificate No. 4184, but that the title to the lands purchased by John Dawson by certificate No. 4115, and the land purchased by John D. Alston by certificate No. 4114, after various transfers, and by inheritance, etc., became vested in Elizabeth Ann Hawkins, and the estate of Joseph T. Hawkins now owns the fractional sections 31 and 32 in township 14 south, range 11 east, containing 68.14 acres, on Cypress Island; and the estate of Elizabeth Ann Hawkins now owns all of the lands purchased by John Dawson and John D. Alston and covered by the said certificates Nos. 4115 and 4114. The plaintiffs in this suit are the heirs of Joseph T. Hawkins and Elizabeth Ann Hawkins, both deceased. Their chain of title is accurately given in the written reasons for judgment handed down by our learned brother of the district court, from which we quo.te the following :

“That on December 26, 1843, John Dawson secured certificate No. 4115 from the United States Land office at Opelousas, La., for lot 1 of section 6, and lots 1 and 2, section 5, town *413 ship 15 south, range 11 east, on Cypress Island.
“That this land was sold by John Dawson on August 2, 1834, by authentic act to H. Crawford and M. Demeret, in indivisión or an undivided half to each vendee. That Henderson Crawford sold this land to Martin Demeret by authentic act on April 8, 1844. That Martin •Demeret died intestate, October 7, 1845, leaving his widow, Mrs. Anne Crow Demeret, and two children, Felix Martin Demeret and Elizabeth Anne Demeret, wife of Joseph T. Hawkins. That -on March 6, 1849, an authentic act of partition in kind was made and executed between Mrs. Anne Crow Demeret, widow of Martin Demeret, Felix Martin Demeret, and Mrs. Elizabeth Anne Demeret, wife of Joseph T. Hawkins, in which Felix Martin Demeret sold his interest inherited from his father (Martin Demeret) to Joseph T. Hawkins by act dated March 6, 1849. That Mrs. Anne Grow Demeret, widow of said Martin Demeret, sold by authentic act her undivided half in this land to Joseph T. Hawkins on June 8, 1850. That Joseph T. Hawkins died, intestate, on the 20th day of June, 1867. That Elizabeth Anne Demeret, widow of Joseph T. Hawkins, they having been, married on December 28, 1843, renounced all her interest in the community theretofore existing between her and her said deceased husband by authentic act dated March 21, 1868, thus causing her interest in the community property to revert to and belong to the succession of her husband (Joseph T. Hawkins).
“That the sheriff of the parish of St. Mary pursuant to an order of court, rendered in the succession of Joseph T. Hawkins, deceased, sold to Thomas J. Foster, at public auction, the undivided three-fourths interest in this land on Cypress Island, as per certificate No. 4115 on January 23, 1868. That Thomas J. Foster' sold by authentic act the undivided three-fourths interest in this land to Mrs. Elizabeth Anne Hawkins, widow of Joseph T. Hawkins, dated July 17, 1872. That Mrs. Elizabeth Anne Hawkins, widow of Joseph T.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Broussard v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co.
164 So. 2d 84 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Lovey v. Escambia County
141 So. 2d 761 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Pavell v. Berwick
48 F. Supp. 246 (W.D. Louisiana, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 So. 413, 159 La. 409, 1925 La. LEXIS 2249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cocke-v-spangler-la-1925.