Leury v. Mayer
122 La. 486, 47 So. 839, 1908 La. LEXIS 489 (1908)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A purchaser who knows all the material facts demonstrating a seller's lack of authority to transfer property cannot acquire ownership through prescription, as a mistake of law does not constitute the 'good faith' or 'just title' required for such acquisition.
Facts:
- J. E. Leury and Hannah Leury were married in 1880 and had one child, the plaintiff, in 1881.
- In 1891, during the marriage, J. E. Leury acquired 20 shares of stock in the Bank of Baton Rouge, making it community property.
- Hannah Leury died in August 1893, at which point her undivided one-half interest in the stock was inherited by the plaintiff.
- In October 1893, a few months after his wife's death, J. E. Leury sold the entire 20 shares of stock to the defendant.
- The defendant was an officer of the bank, knew the Leury family, and was aware that the stock was acquired during the marriage, that Mrs. Leury had died, and that the plaintiff was her only child.
- J. E. Leury was never legally qualified as the tutor (guardian) for his minor son.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Louis F. Leury filed suit against the defendant in a Louisiana trial court to be recognized as the owner of a one-half interest in 20 shares of bank stock.
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing his joint ownership and ordering the sale of the stock and accrued dividends to effect a partition.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a purchaser who knows all the facts that establish a minor's ownership interest in property acquire that interest by prescription, when his belief in the seller's authority to sell is based on a mistake of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Land, J.
No. A purchaser who knows all the facts showing a seller's lack of legal authority does not acquire a minor's property interest by prescription because his claim is based on an error of law, which negates the requirements of good faith and just title. The court reasoned that the father, J.E. Leury, had no right to sell his son's inherited interest in the stock. His status as a usufructuary only entitled him to the dividends (fruits) of the stock, not the right to sell the stock itself, as it is not a consumable good like money or grain. Furthermore, even if he had been the qualified tutor for his son, a private sale of a minor's stock without a court order was legally prohibited. The defendant's plea of prescription fails because the three-year prescription period requires possession in 'good faith' and by a 'just title.' The defendant knew all the facts of the situation: that the stock was community property, that the mother was deceased, and that the plaintiff was the minor heir. Therefore, his belief that the father could legally sell the entire certificate was a mistake of law, not fact. Citing the Louisiana Civil Code, the court affirmed the principle that an 'error of law can never be alleged as the means of acquiring' property, meaning the defendant was a possessor in bad faith and the sale was void as to the minor's interest.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strong legal protections for minors' property interests in Louisiana civil law. It clearly distinguishes between an 'error of fact,' which may support a good faith claim for acquisitive prescription, and an 'error of law,' which cannot. The ruling establishes that knowledge of the underlying facts that legally invalidate a sale prevents a purchaser from claiming good faith, regardless of their personal understanding of the law. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for third parties to acquire title to property that has been improperly alienated from a minor's estate, thereby placing a burden on purchasers to understand the legal implications of the facts they know.
