Quaker Realty Co. v. Bradbury
Citations
- 123 La. 20
- 48 So. 570
- 1909 La. LEXIS 669
Syllabus
<p>1. Real Actions (§ 7*) — Petitory Actions— Possessor in Bad Faitii.</p> <p>A possessor of real estate, who knows that he has no title to the property, is necessarily in bad faith.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Real Actions,. Cent. Dig. § 23; Dec. Dig. § 7.*]</p> <p>2. Real Actions (§ 8*) — Petitory Actions— Improvements.</p> <p>In a petitory action, the defendant possessor in bad faith cannot recover the value of improvements in their nature inseparable from the soil, except by way of set-oif to the plaintiff’s demand for fruits and revenues.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Real Actions, Cent. Dig. § 35; Dec. Dig. § 8.*]</p> <p>3. Real Actions (§ 8*) — Petitory Actions— Separable Improvements.</p> <p>In a petitory action, the defendant possessor in bad faith cannot recover the value of building's and constructions separable from the soil, unless the plaintiff should elect to keep them.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Real Actions, Cent. Dig. § 35; Dec. Dig. § 8.*]</p> <p>4. Real Actions (§ 8*) — Petitory Actions— Taxes — Repairs.</p> <p>In a petitory action, the defendant possessor in bad faith may recover necessary expenses incurred in the preservation of the property, such as taxes, and repairs on constructions and works belonging to the owner.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Real Actions, Cent. Dig. § 34; Dec. Dig. § 8.*]</p> <p>5. Real Actions (§ 8*) — Petitory Actions— Rental Value.</p> <p>In a petitory action, where the plaintiff does not elect to keep the buildings and constructions separable from the soil, the revenues should be measured by the rental value of the property without such improvements.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Real Actions, Cent. Dig. § 34; Dec. Dig. § 8.*]</p> <p>6. Real Actions (§ 8*) — Petitory Actions— Fruits and Revenues.</p> <p>In a petitory action, the plaintiff can recover fruits and revenues only from the date of his acquisition of the title, where the rights of his authors to th
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding 9 that defendant insurer did not have “minimum contacts” with New York where accident occurred 10 but defendant otherwise had no contacts with the state
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Land
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.