In re the Succession of Dornier

I believe it should be observed that plaintiff did prove that the outward appearances of possession remained the same after the father sold to defendant: the father did not move off, and the purchasing son (who already lived there) did not move onto the premises. Thus this case appears to be factually similar to Cusimano v. Ferrara, 170 La. 1044, 129 So. 630 (1930), where the son who purchased already resided with his father on the property. In holding the sale a simulation, the court reasoned, at 120 So. 631,

“After this the father continued to reside upon the property, and resides there…