Metcalfe v. Green

74 So. 261, 140 La. 950
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedOctober 6, 1916
DocketNo. 21913
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 74 So. 261 (Metcalfe v. Green) 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
Metcalfe v. Green, 74 So. 261, 140 La. 950 (La. 1916).

Opinion

Statement of the Case.

MONROE, C. J.

Plaintiffs, the widow and heirs of Dr. Yolney Metcalfe and of a deceased coheir, brought this suit, under Act No. 38 of 1908, to “establish title” to the east half of the east half of section 31, township 9 north, range 9 east, in the parish of Concordia, and they are before this court asking for the review of an adverse judgment, rendered by the district court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. The parties named in the petition and W. D. Mounger, receiver of the Tensas River Planting Company, appeared, and, by way of answer, alleged that the tract described was included in and sold as part of the “Rota Quinta Plantation,” under a mortgage imposed upon the plantation by plaintiffs, and was so acquired, through mesne conveyances and inheritance, by the defendants Mrs. Ellen H. Green and her children; that Mrs. Green died since the institution of this suit, and her children, inheriting her interest, conveyed the plantation, including the tract in question, to Ellen H. Green Company, by which it was similarly conveyed to First Natchez Bank, which, in like manner, conveyed it to W. P. Campbell, who conveyed it, as part of said plantation, to Tensas River Planting Company, of which the defendant W. D. Mounger is receiver. They alleged that they and their authors in title had enjoyed open and uninterrupted possession of said plantation and tract, under a title translative of property, for more than 10 years prior to the institution of this suit, and they pleaded the prescription of 10 years. They also alleged that if plaintiffs ever had any interest in said property, they had abandoned it for more than 30 years, and were estopped to disturb defendants with respect to such interest which defendants had, in the meanwhile, acquired.

The subjoined sketch, which is a composite of the several plats of survey that we find in the transcript, shows with sufficient accuracy (in the shaded areas) the land owned by Dr. Metcalfe at the time of his death. As to the acreage, the figures on the sketch (taken from one of the plats in the record) differ slightly from those found by the counsel, respectively, but the difference is immaterial, for the purposes of this opinion. The main body, of say 1,100 acres, being the land in sections 25 and 30, was bought in 1845, under one title, from J. Franklin Ford, and the various other tracts were acquired from the United States, by different entries, in 1846, the E. % and S. W. (fractional) % of section 24 having been included in those entries, but Dr. Metcalfe in 1851 sold to Fred Stanton, as “supposed to contain about 90 acres,” that portion of section 24 which, on the “sketch,” bears the legend “90 acres, Stanton.”

[953]*953

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

Related

IP Timberlands Operating Co. v. Denmiss Corp.
657 So. 2d 282 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1995)
Carter Oil Company v. King
134 So. 2d 89 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)
Heirs of Boagni v. Thornton
132 So. 2d 494 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1961)
James v. Le Blanc
95 So. 2d 175 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1957)
Griffin v. Bank of Abbeville & Trust Co.
88 So. 2d 231 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1956)
Southwest Gas Producing Co. v. Hattie Brothers
88 So. 2d 649 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1956)
Poulos v. Liuzza
43 So. 2d 59 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1949)
Dugas v. Powell
1 So. 2d 677 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1941)
Reynaud v. Bullock
196 So. 29 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1940)
J. Herman Co. v. A. Ackal & Bro.
132 So. 408 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1931)
Patterson & Co. v. John Bonura & Co.
8 La. App. 449 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1928)
Liverman v. Hungerbeeler
100 So. 425 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1924)
Lattimer's Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co.
83 So. 543 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 So. 261, 140 La. 950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metcalfe-v-green-la-1916.