Skip to main content
· 5/2/1921

Peyton v. Roth

Citations

  • 149 La. 147
  • 88 So. 773
  • 1921 La. LEXIS 1399

Syllabus

<p>(Syllables by Editorial StaffJ</p> <p>1. Descent and distribution <&wkey;90 (4)— Succession; where deceased retained control and collected rents, after transfer to defendant the burden was on defendant to show valid consideration.</p> <p>In a proceeding to set aside transfers of real estate by plaintiffs’ deceased father, to defendant, his son-in-law, as fraudulent simulations, where the deceased collected rents and paid taxes, and for most, if not all, repairs, and treated the property as if he still owned it until his death, the burden rested on defendant to show that a valid consideration was paid for the property in view of Civ. Code, art. 2480, declaring that where the thing sold remains in seller’s possession because he has reserved the usufruct, there is reason to presume that the sale is simulated, and with respect to third parties the parties must prove the sale is bona fide.</p> <p>2. Evidence <&wkey;383(7) — Declaration in decedent’s will that he had made bona fide sales of certain property held to add nothing to the authentic acts of sale as evidence of good faith.</p> <p>In a proceeding to declare null, as fraudulent simulations, two sales of real estate by plaintiffs’ father, now deceased, to decedent’s son-in-law, for the sum of $1,500 and $800 cash respectively, a statement in decedent’s will that he had sold such property to such party with the understanding that decedent should have the usufruct during life held to add nothing to the declaration already made in the two authentic acts of sale as to issue of good faith.</p> <p>3. Descent and distribution <&wkey;90(4) — Succession; purchaser held not to have overcome presumption of statute that where vendor remained in possession under reservation of usufruct the transaction was not bona fide.</p> <p>' In plaintiffs’ proceeding to declare null, as fraudulent simulations, two sales of real estate made by their father, now deceased, to his son-in-law for the respective sums of $1,500 and $800 cash, h

Judges: Niell

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.