Skip to main content
· 1/18/1904

George v. Delaney

Citations

  • 111 La. 760
  • 35 So. 894
  • 1904 La. LEXIS 558

Syllabus

<p>COMMUNITY PROPERTY — DEATH OP WIPE — RIGHTS OP HEIRS — SALE BY HUSBAND — RIGHTS OP PURCHASER—MINOR—ESTOPPELPRESCRIPTION—POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH-EVICTION—IMPROVEMENTS.</p> <p>1. Upon the* death of the wife, an undivided half interest in the property of the community vests in her heirs, and a subsequent sale by the surviving husband, though purporting to convey the whole property, in reality conveys only the undivided interest of the husband, and constitutes the vendee an owner in indivisión with the heirs of the wife, who are not bound to await the liquidation of the community for the bringing of an action to recover their interest. Nor, in such action, is the indebtedness of the community, or its financial condition, when dissolved, a legitimate subject of inquiry.</p> <p>2. A minor is not estopped to sue for the recovery of property inherited from her mother, and illegally sold by her father, because of the payment of the price to the administrator of her father’s succession, or of the payment of the same by her father’s administrator to her grandfather, who has not qualified as her tutor, and is not shown to have used the money for her benefit, or by reason of the fact that part 9f such price has been paid to her after her majority, when it does not appear that she was informed of the source whence it came.</p> <p>3. The prescription of 10 years, acquirendi causa, does not run against minors.</p> <p>4. A possessor in good faith is entitled, upon eviction, to recover for improvements made by him which add- value to the property, and to be reimbursed taxes paid during his possession; and the owner, who recovers the property, is entitled to rent and revenues from judicial demand.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “Because the ALJ’s reasoning for rejecting several opinions in the record is abundantly unclear to the Court, the matter must be remanded for further proceedings.”
  • “Because the ALJ’s reasoning for rejecting several opinions in the record is abundantly unclear to the Court, the matter must be remanded for further proceedings.”
  • “The fact that an ALJ believes that a treating source opinion should not be afforded controlling weight does not excuse him from meaningfully considering the opinion and adequately explaining his reasons for not adopting the Opinion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Monroe

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.