Pearce v. Frantum
Supreme Court of Louisiana
ON A REHEARING. The first opinion in this case was pronounced at October term, 1838. The counsel of the plaintiffs urged a rehearing and the following petition was presented.
Read the full summary
ON A REHEARING. The first opinion in this case was pronounced at October term, 1838. The counsel of the plaintiffs urged a rehearing and the following petition was presented. At the close of the term, after judge Bullard had left the court, the other two judges (Martin and Carleton,) having some doubts respecting the correctness of the decision, granted a rehearing. asked for a rehearing : ■ It is respectfully urged that the defendant was never a possessor in good faith, but on the contrary, that he was a possessor in kacl faith ; and a possessor can occupy but one of two positions, he must…
1Opinion of the CourtBullard, J.
In the opinion first given in this case, the court held : 1st. That the defendant was liable for fruits from the institution of the suit, and not before. 2d. That he was entitled to the costs of improvements left upon the land, by which it was rendered more valuable to the owner, in compensation of fruits.
1. The first proposition has not been much combated in the argument upon the rehearing. We think it perfectly clear, that with respect to fruits, the possession of more than a year suffices to give the possessor a right to be maintained in his possession, until a better right be shown, and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Jackson v. LudelingSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Gaines v. New OrleansU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana · 1871
- Jackson v. LudelingSupreme Court of the United States · 1879