Botto v. Berges
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Oivil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. King, J. There must be two attesting witnesses to an authentic act; otherwise its execution must be proven as an act under private signature. C. C. 2234. The same rule applies to acts executed by a commissioner. Nor can the act be admitted even to prove rem ipsam, without proof of its execution.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Oivil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. King, J. There must be two attesting witnesses to an authentic act; otherwise its execution must be proven as an act under private signature. C. C. 2234. The same rule applies to acts executed by a commissioner. Nor can the act be admitted even to prove rem ipsam, without proof of its execution. Leibe vs. Haversmith, 39 An. 1050; Miller vs. Werner, 22 An. 457; and Langley & Kinkead vs. Burrows & Co., 15 An. 392. A promise of sale subject to ezamination of titles means that the vendor must exhibit a regular chain of titles, free…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
This is a suit to recover two hundred dollars deposited by plaintiff as earnest of her promise to buy.
The plaintiff alleges that defendants’ title was not legal and valid; that the defendants have not made a tender of the title; that they are not the owners, and that there are mortgages and privileges recorded against the property.
*961That, although unable to give good title, the defendants refuse to return the money deposited.
The answer controverts plaintiff’s demand, and contains a plea in reconvention; it sets out the validity of the title,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Carona v. McCallumLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1962
- Allen v. Ponchatoula Beach Development Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1962
- State ex rel. Sherman v. La Salle Realty Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1925