Revoll v. Stroudbach & Stern

Citations

• 107 La. 295

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. The purchaser of real estate bought by a married woman In her own name and evidently with her paraphernal funds is without good ground to urge that the property was a community asset in the presence of the fact that the testimony establishes that it was not.</p> <p>2. A title to immovable property formerly bought by a woman whose name in the act is preceded by the letters “Mrs.” and subsequently sold by her In an act wherein nothing leads to the inference that she was married, and in view of the fact that other testimony amply sustains the contention that she was not married, is unquestionably good and valid.</p> <p>3. Moreover, the title falls within the grasp of the statute of prescription of ten years during which owners have been in possession without any adverse <?laim urged to the property by any one. It can be safely decreed that the purchaser is tendered a title which he must accept.</p>