Knott v. Gough
Supreme Court of Louisiana
from the District Court of Union, JR. W. Richm'dson, J. The testimony and the pleadings show that the defendant was a mere tress-passer ; to recover against him, therefore, it was unnecessary that the plaintiff should have exhibited a title perfect in all respects; one apparently good was sufficient.
Read the full summary
from the District Court of Union, JR. W. Richm'dson, J. The testimony and the pleadings show that the defendant was a mere tress-passer ; to recover against him, therefore, it was unnecessary that the plaintiff should have exhibited a title perfect in all respects; one apparently good was sufficient. Bailio v. Burney, 3 R., 317; Fanehonette v. Grange, 5 R., 510 ; Bonis v. James, 7 R., 149 ; ¡Stephenson v. Goff, 10 R., 99. The authority to sell land must be in writing: C. C. 2966; Bradford v. Oook, 4 An., 231; Freret v. Meux, 9 R., 416; Anderson v. Smith, 4 An., 526 ; Patterson v. Bloss, 4 L.…
1Opinion of the CourtVooaniES, J.
This is an action to recover both rent and damages. The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of the north east quarter of section sixteen township twenty-one of range one east, one hundred acres of which is cultivated by the defendant, who has forcibly taken and kept said land in his possession and made a good crop on the same for the year 1851. He claims for rent $250, and for damages also $250. ■ The defendant avers that he has been in possession of the land in question uninterruptedly as owner during the term of four years to the month of December, 1851, since which time he has ceased to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State ex rel. Landry v. Morning Star Benevolent Ass'nLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1931
- Chagnard v. NatalLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1951
- Smith v. TimonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1925
- Humphreys v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889