Noel v. Jumonville Pipe and MacHinery Company
1963 La. LEXIS 2669, 158 So. 2d 179, 245 La. 324 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An heir can tack the possession of an ancestor to his own for the purpose of 30-year acquisitive prescription because privity is established by operation of law through inheritance. When that heir subsequently acquires the interests of his co-heirs in an adjacent, titled property, their possession of the disputed, untitled tract is also transferred if the deed describes the property by its common name and it was understood to include the disputed tract, thereby allowing the heir to tack the co-heirs' possession as well.
Facts:
- Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Company, Inc. held the record title to a 38.88-acre tract of land in Ascension Parish.
- In 1914, Robert E. Noel acquired McManor Plantation, which was adjacent to the disputed 38.88-acre tract.
- From 1914 until his death in 1937, Robert E. Noel continuously and openly possessed the disputed tract as if it were part of McManor Plantation by building fences, farming, and grazing cattle.
- Upon Robert E. Noel's death in 1937, his wife and eight children, including his son Frank S. Noel, inherited McManor Plantation.
- From 1937 onward, Frank S. Noel managed McManor Plantation and continued his father's possession of the disputed tract on behalf of the family.
- In 1945, Frank S. Noel acquired all the interests of his mother and seven siblings in McManor Plantation through acts of donation and sale.
- The deeds transferring the co-heirs' interests described 'McManor Plantation' but did not contain a specific legal description of the disputed 38.88-acre tract.
- Jumonville later granted timber sales and mineral leases on the disputed property, prompting Noel to assert his ownership claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Company, Inc. filed a petitory action in the district court.
- Frank S. Noel filed a jactitory action, which was converted into a petitory action, and Noel pleaded 30 years acquisitive prescription.
- The trial court consolidated the actions and rendered judgment in favor of Frank S. Noel, finding he had acquired ownership through prescription.
- Jumonville, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and declared Jumonville the lawful owner of the property.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
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 an heir have the right to tack the possession of his ancestor and co-heirs to establish 30-year acquisitive prescription over an untitled tract of land, even if the deeds transferring the adjacent titled property from the co-heirs do not mention the disputed tract?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamlin, Justice
Yes, an heir has the right to tack the possession of his ancestor and co-heirs under these circumstances. When Robert E. Noel died, his possession of the disputed tract continued uninterrupted in his heirs by operation of law, establishing the necessary privity between them. This differs from a standard vendor-vendee relationship where the disputed land must be in the deed to create privity. The court found that when the co-heirs sold their interests in 'McManor Plantation' to Frank S. Noel, the general description was sufficient to transfer their possessory rights to the disputed tract because it was always considered part of the plantation. Therefore, Frank S. Noel could tack his father's possession (1920-1937) to the possession he shared with his co-heirs (1937-1945) and his subsequent sole possession, satisfying the 30-year requirement for acquisitive prescription.
Dissenting - McCaleb, Justice
No, an heir cannot tack the possession of his co-heirs when the deeds transferring their interests do not describe the disputed property. Frank S. Noel inherited only a 1/12th interest in his father's possession. The subsequent transfers from his mother and siblings did not convey their possessory rights to the disputed 38 acres because the land was not described in the deeds. Established jurisprudence holds that a particular description in a deed prevails over a general one, and tacking between a seller and buyer requires a title transfer covering the specific property. Since the deeds omitted the disputed tract, Frank S. Noel could not tack his co-heirs' possession and therefore never acquired more than the 1/12th interest in possession that he inherited.
Dissenting - Sanders, Justice
No, an heir cannot tack the possession of his co-heirs because there is no juridical link between them regarding the specific property in dispute. Tacking requires a juridical link, which, in a sale, necessitates that the property be included in the title. The conveyances to Frank S. Noel did not include the 38-acre tract, and the general language conveying 'privileges and advantages' refers to servitudes, not additional tracts of land. Since the instruments of transfer failed to create a juridical link as to the disputed property, Frank S. Noel cannot utilize his co-heirs' possession for the purpose of acquisitive prescription.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the strict privity requirement for tacking possessions in acquisitive prescription, particularly within a family succession context. By distinguishing privity by operation of law (inheritance) from privity by contract (sale), the court lowers the bar for heirs seeking to tack family possession. The ruling suggests that the parties' intent and the historical understanding of a property's boundaries can override a deed's silence, potentially weakening the certainty of record titles when adjacent land has been possessed for long periods by a family. This creates a pathway for prescription claims that might have failed under the stricter vendor-vendee rule from cases like Stutson v. McGee.
