Stierle v. Kaiser
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J. 1. Parol evidence is not admissible for the purpose of proving that a third person was interposed to receive or to be invested with the title to the real estate, for the use of and instead of the intended vendee.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J. 1. Parol evidence is not admissible for the purpose of proving that a third person was interposed to receive or to be invested with the title to the real estate, for the use of and instead of the intended vendee. C. C. 2440, 2275; 42 An. 449 ; 32 An. 166; 30 An. 898; 4 La. 166; 2 La. 598; 15 An. 540; 5 An. 132; 12 An. 213; 44 An. 600. When a commission is obtained to take parol evidence, and the pleadings and issues show that parol evidence is not admissible, the ruling of the lower court rescinding the order will be…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
Plaintiff, alleging that he is the owner of certain real estate in New Orleans, which he acquired from F. H-. Stierle on February 8, 1892, by public act duly recorded, and of which the defendant is in possession without title, prays that his title be recognized and that the defendant be made to remove from it and deliver him possession, or in default of his so doing, that he be ejected by process of court.
The defendant pleads the general denial and especially avers that he is the owner of the property. That he bought it from the succession of…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Little v. HaikSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1964
- Scurto v. Le BlancSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1938
- Ceromi v. HarrisSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1937
- Eberle v. EberleSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1926
- Succession of BlockSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1915
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.