Bonvillain v. Bodenheimer

Citations

• 117 La. 793
• 42 So. 273
• 1906 La. LEXIS 774

Syllabus

<p>1.Vendor and Purchaser — Action by Vendee-Restitution or Price.</p> <p>The petition of the buyer, who alleges the purchase of real estate, the payment of the price, and actual possession of the property purchased, and which further alleges a superior outstanding title, but does not allege, dispossession by judicial proceeding or a pending suit to evict, discloses no cause of action, and is premature as to the demand for restitution of price, and exceptions to that effect should be maintained, and the suit dismissed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 48, Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 969, 970.]</p> <p>2. Actions — Joinder or Causes.</p> <p>Where a cause of action for restitution of price is otherwise disclosed, there is no objection to uniting with it a demand for the correction of an error in the description of the property. The law abhors an unnecessary multiplicity of litigation.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 1, Action, § 548.]</p> <p>On Rehearing.</p> <p>3. Vendor and Purchaser — Sale—Failure</p> <p>or Title — Recovery or Price Paid.</p> <p>The sale of a thing belonging to another person is null. Civ. Code, art. 2452 (2427); Code Napoleon, art. 1599. In such case the purchaser incurs no obligation to pay the price, and may sue to annul the sale and recover the price paid at any time, though he may not have been actually evicted or disturbed in his possession by the true owner. Jurisprudence reviewed, and the case of Bonnabel v. Municipality, 3 La. Ann. 699, overruled.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 48, Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 5, 969, 970.]</p> <p>4. Same — Partial Eviction.</p> <p>In cases of partial eviction, the relative value at the time of the sale of the part from which the purchaser has been evicted, if shown by the evidence, should he considei’ed. Civ. Code, art. 2514. Equality of value can be presumed only in cases where there is no proof of relative value.</p> <p>[Ed. Not