The Southern Reporter Volume 51 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1910 Excerpt: ... and (b) because what they bought was the interest of their father in the succession. Manifestly, his interest was a certain fractional proportion, less what he had received on account Defendants, on the other hand, say that the court erred In not according to their mother, and (through her) to them, the benefit of the possession of her vendor (their father), and in not, upon that basis, maintaining their plea of the prescription of 30 years; in not allowing them the benefit of their plea of prescription as to the property sold by them, with respect to which they are warrantors, entitled to plead any defenses that might be urged by their vendees; in not maintaining the prescription pleaded against the demand for money received by them, the action in that respect being a personal one. There is no doubt that, where an heir (and the same may be said of a co-proprietor, other than an heir) has possessed the whole or part of an estate separately for 30 years, he may successfully oppose a suit for partition. Civ. Code, arts. 1305, 3475. But he must have possessed uninterruptedly and in the same character during the entire period; and where a person, having acquired a particular described tract of land, has taken possession of an adjoining tract, or, having acquired a specific interest in a particular tract, has taken possession of the whole, with a view of acquiring the additional tract, or interest, merely by holding potisesslon of It under a claim of ownership, he does not convey such possession to a vendee, to whom he sells the tract or Interest described, and such vendee cannot, for the purpose of aiding himself in the acquisition by prescription of property not included in his title, add his vendor's possession to his own, there being no privity between him ...