Moore v. Boagni
Citations
- 111 La. 490
- 35 So. 716
- 1903 La. LEXIS 552
Syllabus
<p>MORTGAGES—TAX SALE—PURCHASE BY MORTGAGEE-CONTRACT WITH MORTGAGOR—ANTICHRESIS—ACCEPTANCE—REDEMPTION — TAX TITLE.</p> <p>1. A mortgagee not in any way hound for the payment of his mortgagor’s taxes may buy the latter’s property at tax sale.</p> <p>2. A tax sale may be valid, and the buyer at the tax sale may be entitled to the property, as owner, until it is redeemed, and also to the rent, yet, it the tax purchaser changes by written instrument the relations of buyer at tax sale to the owner of the property bought, he will, under the facts of this case, be held bound by the terms find conditions of the instrument of writing delivered by him to the former owner.</p> <p>3. The instrument was not an antichresis. It none the less extended the terms for redemption.</p> <p>4. The agreement between the buyer at tax sale and the tax debtor was accepted by the latter. The time granted for redeeming had never been recalled by the buyer at tax sale at the time suit was bypught.</p> <p>5. The instrument showing the agreement was recorded, suit was brought within the period fixed for redemption, and other facts show acceptance of the written agreement, although it had never been signed by the tax debtor.</p> <p>6. The tax debtor was also the mortgagor of the property in favor of the buyer at tax sale. The former (the mortgagor), upon paying charges and her mortgage indebtedness, is entitled to the property.</p> <p>7. The creditor stipulated with the view of recovering his mortgage claim, nothing more; and the language used in the agreement leads to the one inference that he did not propose to retain the property, the rent thereon, the penalty on the taxes, and to collect, besides, principal due him and interest.</p> <p>8. In the agreement he stipulated that his debtor would have to pay the insurance on the property, precluding the idea that he intended, in case of redemption, to recover the insurance paid, and the rent on the property as well.</p> <p>On Rehearing.</p> <p>9. The
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- filing a timely claim forces parties to appear before the Court to resolve their disputes without delay
- to acquire statutory standing in a civil forfeiture action, Supplemental Rule G(5) requires the claimant to file both a verified claim and an answer
- generally, a court does not abuse its discretion by requiring claimants to strictly follow Rule G(5)’s provisions
- “Even if the Answers substituted for verified claims—which they do not—the Claimants would still have had to file two distinct pleadings each, and they did not.”
- “Even if the Answers substituted for verified claims—which they do not—the Claimants would still have had to file two distinct pleadings each, and they did not.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breaux, Nicholls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.