Warner v. Hall & Legan Lumber Co.
Citations
- 121 La. 81
- 46 So. 108
- 1908 La. LEXIS 637
Syllabus
<p>1.Administrators — Priv ilege — Allow an ces to Surviving Wife or Children — Setting Apart by Administrator — Land.</p> <p>Article 3252 of the Civil Code grants to the widow or children in necessitous circumstances “money” and not “land.” In order that title to any land of the succession should vest in the widow or children, it would have to be transferred from the succession to them through some legal proceeding. The administrator of the father’s succession is without power or authority to transfer land to the drldren by an allotment or a dation en paiement to them in lieu of money, and the mother cannot legally bind the minors to accept title to the land without their consent.</p> <p>2. Minors and Their Tutorship.</p> <p>In this instance the widow, at a sale made by an administrator to pay debts, bid in her individual name, upon a specific piece of real estate. As the last and highest bidder it was adjudicated to her in her individual name, and deed executed to her in her individual name, as purchaser. By the adjudication she became personally bound for the price. The fact that after the purchase the administrator, instead of requiring her to pay cash, credited her with the amount of her bid, taking from her her receipt for an amount corresponding to her bid, cannot be invoked by the children as having the effect- of making them purchasers of the-land.'</p> <p>3. Vendor and Purchaser — Bo-na Fide Purchasers — Reliance on Records.</p> <p>Where the widow appears on the face of' the succession records, and the records dehors the succession as the legal owner of the land,, and no equities in 'favor of the children appear in any way, third persons buying the property from her in good faith are protected from attack of the children under a claim by them of ownership.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 48, Vendor and Purchaser, § 513.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Plaintiffs must [ ] plausibly allege that Defendants knew” that it was likely for “the company to miss its revenue projections.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: 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.