Pharr v. Coudroy

Citations

• 118 La. 499
• 43 So. 76
• 1907 La. LEXIS 753

Syllabus

<p>1. Payment — Repetition.</p> <p>This was a suit for repetition of payment of amount claimed to have been paid in error.</p> <p>2. Same — Evidence.</p> <p>The error was not proven.</p> <p>8. Estoppej>-Acts of Parties.</p> <p>The claims of .all interested creditors and ■owners of the property about to be sold in foreclosure proceedings had been litigated, and judgement rendered. At the last moment oppositions to the sales were about to be filed. The parties agreed upon a compromise. It was consummated. The plaintiff in foreclosure, being the transferee of all the mortgage claims thereon, exercising his rights as a bidder on the property, beca1\\' the adjudicatee and owner.</p> <p>Having effected his purpose in a legitimate manner of becoming the owner, having proposed to parties interested to become the owner of their claims, and they, in consequence, having abandoned all claims, the adjudicatee and owner is without right to reclaim what he has paid. He is estopped by conduct and by the effect of subsequent judicial proceedings.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>As relates to the larger of the two amounts claimed.</p> <p>A large amount was due to the minors. Considerably less was accepted by their tutrix in payment of their claims. Had not compromise been effected, the sum would have remained due to these minors. At their majority they accepted the amount paid by the adjudicatee and vendee at sheriff’s sale. This was a large consideration of itself.</p> <p>Having, through the agency of the tutrix, obtained this claim, vendee received consideration sufficient to stand as a bar to his setting aside the compromise.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>