Harris v. Mount Zion Baptist Church

198 So. 780
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 2, 1940
DocketNo. 17097.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 So. 780 (Harris v. Mount Zion Baptist Church) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. Mount Zion Baptist Church, 198 So. 780 (La. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a petitory action brought by the St. Mary Benevolent Association of St. Charles Parish, a corporation organized by special act of the Legislature, Act 61 of 1873, through its receiver, Charles Harris, and against the Mount Zion Baptist Church, a corporation organized by act before J. C. Triche, an ex-officio Notary Public, on October 7th, 1899. The plaintiff’s title is based upon an act of sale before Ferdinand Earhart, Deputy Recorder and Ex-Officio Notary Public, for the Parish of St. Charles, under date of April 28th, 1875, whereby the St. Mary Benevolent Association acquired from Palmer Elkins the land in question, which is situated in the town of St. Rose, in the Parish of St. Charles, and measures fifty-six feet, nine and one-half inches front *781 on the Mississippi River by a depth of eighty arpents. The defendant has no paper title to the property, but claims to own it by thirty years’ prescription, ac-quirendi causa, as established by Article 3499 of the Revised Civil Code. The defendant also points to Act 19 of the Special Session of 1918 and pleads the prescription of ten years. There is also a plea of res judicata and estoppel.

There was judgment.below in favor of plaintiff recognizing its title to the property with the exception of a portion of the rear, measuring about one acre front by a depth equal to the width and frontage of the property on the Mississippi River, or fifty-six feet, nine and one-half inches, which had been used by the defendant church as a graveyard. The defendant has appealed-.

Disposing first of the plea of prescription of ten years under Act 19 of the Special Session of 1918, we find that this act in terms applies only to a “corporation heretofore organized, [which] has been dissolved either by the expiration of the time fixed in its charter for its existence, or in any manner whatsoever”. Section 1. The application sought to be made of the act would be justified if there had been a dissolution of the St. Mary Benevolent Association, but that corporation has not been dissolved.

The plea of res judicata is based upon certain proceedings entitled John Anderson et al., members of -the Mount Zion Baptist Church v. J. B. Walton and St. Mary Benevolent Association of St. Charles Parish v. John Anderson et als., Nos. 136 and 231 of the docket of the late Twenty-First Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles. It is claimed that because of these suits the St. Mary Benevolent Association “lost dominion, possession, ownership and control of the property involved in these proceedings more than forty years ago”. In regard to the first suit it is sufficient to say that the plaintiff was not a party thereto and, therefore, could not be bound by anything that was decided therein, and as to the second suit, though the question of title was at issue, it,was held that the parties who presumed to act for the St. Mary Benevolent Association were not authorized to do so and resulted in a non-suit. Moreover, the case was decided in July, 1899, three months before the defendant church was incorporated. It is obvious that the judgments in these proceedings cannot form the basis of a plea of res judicata.

The plea of estoppel which is urged for the first time in this court is based upon the alleged recognition of the Mount Zion Baptist Church as owner a-f the property by certain individual members of the plaintiff corporation. This suit is brought by the corporation, acting through its receiver, and, therefore, quite a different legal entity from the individuals composing it.

The final and most important question in the case is the prescription of thirty years, acquirendi causa.

Articles 3499 and 3500 of the Revised Civil Code provide that “the ownership of immovables is prescribed for by thirty years without any need of title or possession in good faith” and “the possession on which this prescription is founded must be continuous and uninterrupted during all the time; it must be public and unequivocal, and under the title of owner”.

In Frost Lumber Industries, Inc. v. Bluford, 13 La.App. 686, 128 So. 711, 711, it was said:

“To support the plea of thirty-year prescription, the defendant must show with legal certainty an uninterrupted, continuous possession as owner for the time necessary to prescribe. Rev. Civ. Code, art. 3500; Clemens v. Meyer, 44 La.Ann. 390, 10 So. 797; Loeb v. Fetzer, cited supra [155 La. 659, 99 So. 520]; Howell v. Metropolitan Land Co., 127 La. 399, 53 So. 664. * * *
.“Where adverse possession is without title, a person claiming under such possession cannot claim beyond inclosures. Ellis v. Prevost, 19 La. 251; Richard v. Poitevent & Favre Lbr. Company, 10 La.App. 608, 120 So. 235, 121 So. 357. The burden of proof to establish prescription rests on him making the plea. Chapman v. Morris Building & Land Improvement Association, 108 La. 283, 32 So. 371.”

As has been stated, the plaintiff acquired the property by act of sale from Palmer Elkins in 1875. Palmer Elkins, the plaintiff’s vendor, was also the first president of the St. Mary Benevolent Association and the first pastor of the Mount Zion Baptist Church, which appears to have been organized and the church constructed on the property sometime prior to 1899, when the *782 church was incorporated. Certain individuals built homes on various portions of the property and, it is said, that these individuals acknowledged the title of the church by the payment of rents for the use of the land. Three receipts showing the payment of $1 each by different individuals were exhibited in evidence. It is not clear what these payments covered, but be that as it may, it is evident that the individuals occupied the property by virtue of permission given to the members of the St. Mary Benevolent Association by means of a notarial act passed before John B. Martin, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Notary Public, for the Parish of St. Charles, dated February 10th, 1881, whereby the front part of the property nearest the river was divided into fifteen lots and the various families, members of the St. Mary Benevolent Association, were granted “the right to reside, erect buildings and make improvements for the use of themselves and their families, with the privilege to transfer the said rights to their children, until the death of said children, but no further (the grandchildren of the parties hereinabove named to be entitled to claim no rights whatsoever to the inheritance of their parents, in regard to the grant herein made)”. These persons took possession of the property by virtue of the grant of authority of the St. Mary Benevolent Association and were, therefore, not beholden to the Mount Zion Baptist Church. It is immaterial whether they paid the Mount Zion Baptist Church anything for the privilege or not. It is insisted that the church had been in uninterrupted and unequivocal possession of the entire tract from the date of its organization in 1899 until October 22nd, 1934, or more than thirty years when this suit was filed. It appears, however, that in July, 1924, the church was destroyed by fire and has not been rebuilt, though the defendant claims that the property has remained under fence continuously during the entire prescriptive period.

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

Related

Tornabene v. Zor, Inc.
188 So. 2d 75 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1966)
California Company v. Price
99 So. 2d 743 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 So. 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-mount-zion-baptist-church-lactapp-1940.