Barfield v. Saunders

Citations

• 116 La. 136
• 40 So. 593
• 1906 La. LEXIS 478

Syllabus

<p>1. Vendos and Purchaser—Contract—Construction.</p> <p>The promisor and the promisee had agreed upon the terms and the conditions of the sale of land by the former to the latter. Upon the face of the papers it appears that upon the payment of the price the promisee, who was in possession ostensibly as tenant, was to become the owner.</p> <p>2. Same—Sale by Vendor to Tiiird Person.</p> <p>The promisee made the first payment of the price and the condition from that moment was analogous to á sale. The promisor subsequently undertook to sell the property to another person. This, under the condition of the agreement, could not legally be done.</p> <p>3. Evidence—Parol Evidence—Receipt.</p> <p>The receipt contains evidence of an absolute promise of sale. It was not exclusively a receipt which can be explained by oral evidence. To the extent that it was a promise of sale and evidenced the consent, the price, and the thing, it could not be added to, changed, or explained by parol evidence.</p> <p>It was not ambiguous. There was no error or fraud shown. It was evidence of a promise which became an absolute sale on vendee complying with his part of the agreement.</p> <p>4. Petitory Action—Reconvention — Damages.</p> <p>Demand by way of reconvention was cumulated with defendant’s defense; that is, that he had been violently ousted from the property without observing the forms of law. This demand was sustained by the testimony and damages allowed in reconvention.</p> <p>5. Same—Decree—Parties.</p> <p>The vendor to plaintiff in the petitory action and defendant in the jactitation action is not a party to the suit, and cannot, therefore, be ordered to go through the form of making a deed. The order of the district court in this respect is not enforceable.</p> <p>6. Same.</p> <p>The judgment itself is to be taken as a title.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>