Wild v. Wild

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Wild v. Wild

5 Teiss. 17, 1907 La. App. LEXIS 7

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 11, 1907

DocketNo. 4239

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Teiss. 17 (Wild v. Wild) 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

Wild v. Wild, 5 Teiss. 17, 1907 La. App. LEXIS 7 (La. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

MOORE, J.

This was a suit to compel a specific performance of a contract of promise to sell a certain piece of real property.

Defendant refused to take title on the ground that the partition proceedings under which the property in question was acquired is illegal, improper and informal, and not binding on the minors because the succession in which the partition proceedings were held was the owner of two pieces of real estate, whereas the partition proceedings attempted to partition only one piece of property, and not the whole succession; that a partial partition is an anomaly in law,-and does not divest the interest of the minors in the said property in such a way as to prevent them, when they become of age, from claiming their interest therein.

There was judgment in favor of the plaintiff decreeing the title good and commanding the defendant to comply with his obligation to purchase. From this judgment the Defendant appeals.

The facts in this case are on “all fours” with Carrollton Land and Improvement Co., Ltd., vs. Eureka Homestead Society, 119 La. So. Rep., Vol. 44, No. 7, p. 434, in which case it is held that there is nothing prohibiting heirs in a succession from consenting to the sale of particular properties therein or to a partial partition thereof.

The judgment appealed from must, therefore, be and it is hereby affirmed.-

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

MOORE, J.

This was a suit to compel a specific performance of a contract of promise to sell a certain piece of real property.

Defendant refused to take title on the ground that the partition proceedings under which the property in question was acquired is illegal, improper and informal, and not binding on the minors because the succession in which the partition proceedings were held was the owner of two pieces of real estate, whereas the partition proceedings attempted to partition only one piece of property, and not the whole succession; that a partial partition is an anomaly in law,-and does not divest the interest of the minors in the said property in such a way as to prevent them, when they become of age, from claiming their interest therein.

There was judgment in favor of the plaintiff decreeing the title good and commanding the defendant to comply with his obligation to purchase. From this judgment the Defendant appeals.

The facts in this case are on “all fours” with Carrollton Land and Improvement Co., Ltd., vs. Eureka Homestead Society, 119 La. So. Rep., Vol. 44, No. 7, p. 434, in which case it is held that there is nothing prohibiting heirs in a succession from consenting to the sale of particular properties therein or to a partial partition thereof.

The judgment appealed from must, therefore, be and it is hereby affirmed.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Teiss. 17, 1907 La. App. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wild-v-wild-lactapp-1907.