Fontenette v. Kling

Citations

• 118 La. 152
• 42 So. 756
• 1906 La. LEXIS 845

Syllabus

<p>1. Cancellation oe Instruments — Fraud oe' Vendees.</p> <p>In a suit instituted by plaintiff to set aside and have decreed null three acts of sale and contracts of lease, entered into at different times, of the property sold, his contention is. that he was imposed upon and defrauded by defendant.</p> <p>2. Same — Want oe Consideration.</p> <p>He claims that his property was worth five times the price defendant alleged to have paid, and that the price was much less than alleged. Held, this contention is not sustained by the testimony.</p> <p>3. Same — Fraud.</p> <p>He averred and testified that the deeds were-not read and explained to him. Held, the testimony shows the contrary.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>He testified that he never intended to sell his ’ property and that he was led into error by defendant. Held, the testimony is that he willingly became a party to the act as vendor, after full explanation in regard to the nature and effect of each act as it was passed.</p> <p>5. Same — Limitations.</p> <p>Whatever there was of lesion in the last act, passed in February, 1898, was done away with by the effect of time.</p> <p>■6. Same — Inadequacy oe Consideration.</p> <p>It does not appear that there was simulation intended on the part of any one. The transactions were real, and whatever inadequacy of consideration there was, was cured by the four years’ prescription pleaded.</p> <p>7. Homestead.</p> <p>Plaintiff had no right to a homestead.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>