C.S. Gaidry, Inc., and Schwing Management, LLC v. Low Land Construction Company, Inc., XYZ Insurance Company and Harry Bourg Corporation ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                        NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
    STATE OF LOUISIANA
    COURT OF APPEAL
    FIRST CIRCUIT
    NO. 2019 CA 1274
    C. S. GAIDRY, INC. AND SCHWING MANAGEMENT, LLC
    VERSUS
    LOW LAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
    XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY,
    AND HARRY BOURG CORPORATION
    DEC 0 12020
    Judgment Rendered:
    On Appeal from the
    32nd Judicial District Court
    Parish of Terrebonne, State of Louisiana
    No. 1$ 0027
    The Honorable David W. Arcenaux, Judge Presiding
    Damon J. Baldone                                          Attorneys for Plaintiffs/ Appellants,
    Thomas E. Dunn                                            C. S. Gaidry, Inc. and Schwing
    Houma, Louisiana                                          Management, LLC
    Rufus C. Harris, III                                      Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee,
    Cindy Galpin Martin                                      Low Land Construction Co., Inc.
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    James M. Funderburk                                      Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee,
    Standwood R. Duval                                       Harry Bourg Corporation
    Kathryn W. Richard
    April Trahan
    Houma, Louisiana
    BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND BURRIS, t JJ.
    The Honorable William J. Burris, retired, is serving pro tempore by special appointment
    of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
    jvlcCl   n                              f csu/-    a   cj   ash •'   S'   C'cr   G'/S.
    f J". Cv curs
    BURRIS, J.
    This suit concerns ownership of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10, T20S- R17E ( the
    disputed   property),   located   in   Terrebonne   Parish,   from   which   Low   Land
    Construction Co., Inc., (Low Land), removed dirt that it used in a levee project. Low
    Land removed the dirt pursuant to a contract with Harry Bourg Corporation (HBC),
    which claimed to be sole owner of the disputed property. C. S. Gaidry, Inc. ( Gaidry),
    and Schwing Management, LLC ( Schwing), ( collectively, the plaintiffs), instituted
    this suit against HBC and Low Land, asserting ownership of the disputed property
    and seeking damages for the unauthorized dirt removal. In a reconventional demand,
    HBC sought a declaration that it acquired ownership of the disputed property by
    acquisitive prescription.
    The trial court conducted a three- day bench trial where HBC and the plaintiffs
    presented evidence of their chains of title and acts of ownership on the property. The
    trial court concluded that HBC and the plaintiffs were at one time co- owners of the
    disputed property by virtue of record title and that HBC proved that it acquired full
    ownership by virtue of acquisitive prescription. The trial court rendered judgment
    declaring HBC to be owner of the disputed property and dismissing all other claims.
    The plaintiffs have appealed, contending the trial court erred in rendering
    judgment in favor of HBC. The plaintiffs maintain that the evidence establishes their
    clear title to the disputed property and, as owners, they are entitled to damages. They
    argue the trial court erred in finding that the disputed property was transferred to
    RBC' s ancestor in title and that HBC acquired full ownership by acquisitive
    prescription.
    They further challenge the validity of the contract between Low Land
    and HBC.
    Appellate courts review a trial court' s decision to grant or deny a declaratory
    judgment using the abuse of discretion standard. Mai v. Floyd, 05- 2301 ( La. App. 1
    Cir. 12/ 6/ 06), 
    951 So. 2d 244
    , 245, writ denied, 07- 0581 ( La. 5/ 4/ 07), 
    956 So. 2d
                                               2
    619.   The determination of whether property has been acquired through acquisitive
    prescription is one of fact and subject to the manifest error/ clearly wrong standard
    of review.    Guitreau v. Clerk of Court for Livingston, 18- 1154 ( La. App. 1 Cir.
    4/ 23/ 19), 2019WL1781380, * 3; see also Rosell v. ESCO, 
    549 So. 2d 840
    , 844 ( La.
    1989).     Under the manifest error standard of review, a reviewing court may not
    merely decide if it would have found the facts of the case differently. Hayes Fund
    for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain,
    LLC, 14- 2592 ( La. 12/ 8/ 15), 
    193 So. 3d 1110
    , 1115. Rather, to reverse a trial court' s
    factual conclusion, the appellate court must satisfy a two- step process based on the
    record as a whole: there must be no reasonable factual basis for the trial court' s
    conclusion, and the finding must be clearly wrong.         Hayes, 
    193 So. 3d at
    1115-
    16; Stobart v. State through Department of Transportation and Development, 
    617 So. 2d 880
    , 882 ( La. 1993).     This test requires a reviewing court to do more than
    simply review the record for some evidence that supports or controverts the trial
    court' s findings. The court must review the entire record to determine whether the
    trial court' s finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Hayes, 
    193 So. 3d at 1116
    ; Stobart, 617 So. 2d at 882.
    The trial court provided extensive written reasons for judgment that detail the
    numerous factual findings and determinations it made in weighing the conflicting
    evidence and determining that the plaintiffs and HBC were co- owners of the
    property and that HBC acquired full ownership by acquisitive prescription.          After
    thoroughly reviewing the record and applicable law, we are unable to say the trial
    court was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous in its findings. As explained in the
    trial court' s excellent reasons for judgment, which we attach hereto as Appendix A,
    the record supports the trial court' s determinations. Consequently, the trial court did
    not err in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for the value of the dirt removed from the
    property.    The plaintiffs' claims regarding the validity of the dirt contract are moot.
    3
    We affirm the judgment of the trial court and issue this opinion in accordance
    with Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 15. 1B.     Costs of this appeal are
    assessed to C. S. Gaidry, Inc., and Schwing Management, LLC.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    STATE OF LOUISIANA
    COURT OF APPEAL
    FIRST CIRCUIT
    2019 CA 1274
    C. S. GAIDRY, INC. AND SCHWING MANAGEMENT, LLC
    VERSUS
    LOW LAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY,
    AND HARRY BOURG CORPORATION
    McClendon, 7., concurring.
    Y
    Given the expansive language in the April 10, 1942 act of sale between Ashby W.
    Pettigrew and Harry Bourg, I concur in the result reached by the majority.
    APPENDIX A
    C. S.   GAIDRY,        INC.,    ET   AL *                      32ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
    V.
    PARISH OF TERRESONNE
    LOW LAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, *                               STATE OF LOUISIANA
    INC.,    ET AL
    DOCKET NUMBER 180027 *                                        DIVISION D
    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
    On May 23,         2017,       the   C. S.      Gaidry,   Inc. (      hereinafter
    referred to as Gaidry),                 and Schwing Management,                  LLC (   hereinafter
    referred to as Schwing),                    filed this suit asserting a claim
    against the defendants for removal of soil from land located in
    the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                   T20S- R17E,        in Terrebonne Parish in
    Dulac,    Louisiana.
    The plaintiffs alleged that Low Land
    Construction Company,                Inc. (
    hereinafter referred to as Low Land)
    pursuant to a contract with the Harry Bourg Corporation
    hereinafter referred to as HBC),
    removed dirt from the property
    in question for use in connection with a local levee project.
    The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of the property
    and that the dirt was removed without their knowledge or consent.
    Named as defendants were Low Land,                          HBC,       and the   unknown
    insurer of Low Land.                 The plaintiffs claimed various items of
    damage,
    including claims for payment for the dirt removed and
    devaluation of the immovable property.
    In response to the plaintiffs,                       petition,         HBC asserted
    exceptions        of   prescription,          nonjoinder of indispensable parties,
    no   cause   of    action,       and    no   right       of   action,    and    otherwise
    generally denied the plaintiffs,                         allegations.          In   addition,   HBC
    filed a reconventional demand seeking a declaratory judgment
    recognizing its good faith possession as owner for decades"                                      and
    asserting a claim of ownership by acquisitive prescription.
    Finally, HBC asserted what could be characterized as an
    alternative        cross       claim    against         Low Land.       However,      HBC indicated
    that it was merely reserving its right to assert such a claim,
    and it requested that service of its claim on Low Land be
    withheld,
    Low Land also responded to the plaintiffs,                               initial
    1
    petition and generally denied the allegations against it.                                                        It
    also   asserted          exceptions               of    prescription,            no   cause    of    action,          and
    no   right    of       action.             Low Land       also      reconvened against               the
    plaintiffs,            seeking the value of improvements made by it to the
    land in question during the course of its excavation of the
    property.          Further,              Low Land        asserted       an       alternative         cross       claim
    against      HBC       for breach of               the    dirt       removal       contract.
    In response to the alternative cross claim by Low Land
    against      HBC,        HBC      asserted         an exception             of    prescription,            and
    generally denied Low Land' s claim.                                   HEC    further asserted               a
    reconventional demand against the cross claimant,                                              Low    Land,
    seeking indemnification and defense.                                    Low       Land,    in response              to
    this   reconventional                     demand,       asserted       exceptions         of   no     cause         of
    action    and      no       right         of    action,       and denied HBC1s             claim of
    indemnification and defense.
    In       separate            pleadings,          the plaintiffs denied all of the
    allegations            of    HBC and Low Land                  in    their respective
    reconventional               demands.
    On July 19,                  2017,       the plaintiffs             filed a      supplemental
    and amending petition seeking to recover from HBC additional sums
    obtained by HBC for various leases of the subject property to
    third persons for cattle grazing,                                   hunting,       and    agriculture.                By
    answer filed July 20,                          2017,    HBC denied that               it owed the
    plaintiffs anything as a result of                                   those leases.
    On August                  14,    2018,    the plaintiffs               attempted       to    amend
    and supplement their original petition a second time by adding an
    alleged insurer                of    Low Land,           Beacon Insurance Company,                     as       a
    defendant.             The     plaintiffs,              request       to amend and supplement                       the
    petition was             denied.
    Trial of this matter was conducted without a jury on
    October      1,     2,      and     3,     2018.         On the first day of trial
    immediately before the trial began,                                   all    of    the    parties      entered
    into a joint stipulation which included the following agreements:
    1)        HBC and Low Land agreed that the excavated area or
    dirt pit"          created by Low Land in the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                               T20S-
    2
    R17E,       consisted               of    5. 416       acres,       or 235, 910. 71          square feet,       or    550
    of    the    total            pit    area,           all as reflected by a survey by M. P.
    Hebert       dated June                  9,     2017.
    2)         HBC       and Low Land agreed that                      the    excavated area          or
    T20S-
    dirt       pit"     created by Low Land in the SW 1/ 4 of Section 10,
    R17E,       consisted               of        4. 436   acres,       or 193, 234        square      feet,   or   45a    of
    the    total        pit        area,           all as reflected by a survey by M. P.                         Hebert
    dated June               9,    2017.
    3)         HBC and Low Land agreed that                             the   records      from the
    Terrebanne               Levee       District           produced           as   a   result    of   a   public
    records           request           dated March 31,                 2017,       were    authentic.
    4)         HBC       and Low Land agreed that                       the   records      from the
    Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries regarding
    alligator tags pertaining to the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                                    T20S- R17E,
    were     authentic.
    5)         HBC       and Low Land agreed that                       the   records      from the
    Terrebonne Parish Sheriff' s Office regarding the payment of taxes
    attributable                  to    the NW 1/ 4          of     Section         10,    T20S- R17E,      were
    authentic.
    6)         HBC       and Lova Land agreed that                      Daniel     Toups    was   an
    expert in the field of abstracting titles.
    7)         Gaidry and Schwing agreed that Gordon White was an
    expert in the field of abstracting titles.
    8)        Gaidry and Schwing agreed that John Mattingly was a
    land     surveyor.
    9)        Gaidry and Schwing agreed that Leonard Chauvin was
    a     land    surveyor.
    10)       Gaidry and Schwing agreed that Low Land paid HBC
    4. 10 per       cubic          yard         for 181, 861         cubic yards         of   dirt     excavated
    from the dirt pit.
    In        support           of   their     claims,          the   plaintiffs        offered
    seventeen items of documentary evidence at trial,                                                 to   wit:
    a)      Plaintiffs'                     Exhibit    No.    1:        Copy of the 900 page
    H. C.    Wurzlow              Abstract        No.       440,    together with a March
    27,     2017,        report from the land abstractor, Daniel J.
    Toups,            based thereon, regarding the NW 1/ 4 of Section
    10,     T20S- R17E;                 two limited supplemental abstracts of
    title prepared by Daniel J.                               Toups         Land Title     Services
    a
    hereinafter              referred to as                     Toups    Title)      and identified
    as    no.      2017- 202        and no.            2018- 211,         regarding the same
    property;           an extract of                  a    list of documents             from Toups
    Title         abstract         no.    2017- 202;              and    the    curriculum vitae
    of    Mr.      Toups.
    b)      Plaintiffs,              Exhibit              No.    2:     Copies      of   twelve
    documents recorded in the records of the Clerk of
    Court,         Terrebonne             Parish,           Louisiana,          referred     to,    among
    others,         in the Toups                Title           abstract       no.   2018- 211.
    c)      Plaintiffs,              Exhibit              No.    3:     Copies of thirty- eight
    documents recorded in the records                                     of the Clerk of
    Court,         Terrebonne             Parish,           Louisiana,          referred     to,    among
    others,         in the Toups Title                          abstract no.         2017- 202.
    d)      Plaintiffs,              Exhibit              No.    4:     Sixteen " Title
    Sketches"           prepared by Toups Title regarding " Adverse
    Claimants"               to    the NW       1/ 4       of    Section       10,   T20S- R17E.
    e)      Plaintiffs'              Exhibit No. 5:  Copies                         of four leases
    by Gaidry to Shannon J.                  Danos for terms                         of one year
    each for the                  calendar years 2011, 2012,                         2013,   and    2014,
    with regard to various parcels of immovable property,
    and always including the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                           T208-
    R17E.
    f)      Plaintiffs'              Exhibit              No.    6:     Copies      of   records    of
    the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff showing payment of
    property taxes with regard to the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,
    T20S- R17E, for the years 1. 970 through 2017, inclusive,
    and apparently referenced by stipulation number 5
    described hereinabove.
    g)  Plaintiffs, Exhibit No. 7:  Certified copies of
    records of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
    Fisheries            evidencing alligator licenses issued to
    Wilson Gaidry between 1984 and 2018,                                        and alligator egg
    collection permits issued to Dane Ledet with the
    approval            of    the " landowner,"                   Wilson Gaidry,           including
    an egg collection permit for 1996 with regard to the NW
    1/ 4    of     Section          10, T20S- R17E, and annual renewals
    thereof         through          2018, all apparently referenced by
    stipulation number 4 described hereinabove.
    h)      Plaintiffs,
    Exhibit No. 8:  Copy of a one year
    water fowl hunting lease effective September 10, 1995,
    by Gaidry as lessor, regarding land which included the
    NW     1/ 4    of    Section          10,    T20S- R17E.
    W        Plaintiffs,              Exhibit              No.    9:     Copy of a one year
    trapping and hunting lease effective September 10,
    1995, by Gaidry as lessor, regarding land which
    included the NW 1/ 4                    of Section 10,                 T209- R17E.
    j)  Plaintiffs, Exhibit No. 10:  Copy of a ten year
    hunting lease effective October 1, 1984, by Gaidry as
    lessor, regarding land which included the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section         10,       T20S- RI7E.
    W           Plaintiffs'              Exhibit           No.    11:  Copy of an oil, gas,
    and mineral               lease dated November . 25,                  1974, by Lillie
    Lea McKnight Gaidry,                        et     al.,       regarding land which
    included the NW 1/ 4 of section 10,                                    T20S- R17E.
    1)         Plaintiffs,              Exhibit No.              12:     Terrebonne         Parish Tax
    Assessor aerial photograph of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,
    T20S- R17E,              of unknown date.
    m)         Plaintiffs'              Exhibit No.              13:     1998 Google Earth map
    0
    of    the    NW 1/ 4           of    Section        10,      T20S- R17E.
    n)      Plaintiffs'                 Exhibit        No.      14:      Copy of an act of
    sale from Harry Bourg to HBC dated April 7, 1955,
    regarding property which included "[ a) ll that portion
    of    Section 10 which lies West of                                  the East bank of         Four
    Point       Canal,"
    without any designation of township or
    range,
    and being described as part of the same property
    purchased by Harry Bourg from Ashby W. Pettigrew under
    date of April                  10,    1942.
    o)      Plaintiffs'                 Exhibit No.             15:      Copy of an act of
    sale from Ashby W.                     Pettigrew to Harry Bourg dated April
    10,     1942,
    regarding property which included "[ a] ll that
    portion of Section 10 which lies West of the East bank
    of Four Point Canal," without any designation of
    township or range.
    p)       Plaintiffs'                Exhibit        No.      16:
    Copy of a Tobin map
    depicting Section 10,                            T20S- R17E.
    q)       Plaintiffs'                Exhibit        No.      17: (     1)    A copy of a sale
    from Dulac Planting & Manufacturing Company to Albert
    P. Cantrelle, dated October 26,                                    1910, (    2)    a   copy of
    sale from Albert P.
    Cantrelle to Ashland Planting and
    Manufacturing Company, Limited, dated February 16,
    1917, (          3)    a copy of a portion of an apparent mortgage
    by Ashland Planting and Manufacturing Company,                                             Limited,
    in favor of Bank of Terrebonne and Savings Bank, dated
    March 8, 1924, ( 4)
    a copy of a mineral lease by Ashland
    Planting & Manufacturing Company, Ltd., to Union
    Sulphur Company, dated December 23, 1925, ( 5) a copy of
    a portion of a sheriff' s sale from Ashland Planting and
    Mfg.     Co.,          Ltd.,        to Madison L.             Funderburk,           dated May 14,
    1927, (          6)
    a copy of a sale with mortgage by Madison L.
    Funderburk to A. W.                    Pettigrew,             Incorporated,             dated May
    25,     1927, (         7)     a copy of a sale from A. W.                         Pettigrew,
    Inc.,  to Ashby W. Pettigrew, dated May 12, 1931, ( 8)                                              a
    copy of a cash sale from Ashby W. Pettigrew to Harry
    Bourg, dated May 1, 1934, ( 9) a copy of a sheriff' s
    sale from Ashland Planting & Manufacturing Company,
    Ltd., to Bagley C. Lirette, dated August 3,   1935, ( 10)
    a copy of a compromise agreement between A. W.  Pettigrew
    and the heirs of R. R. Barrow ( Irene Barrow, Zoe Barrow
    Topping,  Hallette Barrow Cole, and Jennie Barrow
    Dawson),  dated June 22,  1935, being a portion of
    Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos.  2 and 3, described
    hereinabove, (                  11)
    a copy of a cash sale by Bagley C.
    Lirette to Harry Bourg and Ashby W.                                      Pettigrew,        dated
    August        7,        1935, (       12)
    an additional copy of Plaintiffs'
    Exhibit            No.    14,        and, (  13)
    an additional copy of
    Plaintiffs'              Exhibit           No.     15.
    At trial               of    this matter,
    the defendant offered fifty-six
    items of documentary evidence,                            to      wit:
    a)      HBC Exhibit No.                    1:      Copy of a an act of mortgage
    by Ashland Planting and Manufacturing Company,                                             Limited,
    in favor of Bank of Terrebonne and savings Bank,                                            dated
    March        8,        1924,        a portion of which was                    included as      item
    9)    of    Plaintiffs'               Exhibit No.              17,   described
    hereinabove.
    b)   HBC Exhibit No.  2: Copy of the entire record of
    the Terrebonne Parish Clerk of Court in the matter
    entitled A. W. Pettigrew. Inc. v.
    Ashland Planting &,
    Mfg.      Co.          LTD.,        docket number 9229,                17th     Judicial
    District              Court,        filed December 10,                 1926.
    5
    c)         HBC Exhibit No. 3:              Copy of the judgment rendered
    April            4, 1927, included             in the record of the matter
    described as HBC Exhibit No.                            2,    above..
    d)         HBC   Exhibit     No.    4:     Copy of a sheriff' s sale from
    Ashland Planting and Mfg.                        Co.,        Ltd.,    to Madison         L.
    Funderburk, dated May 14,                        1927,        included in the record
    of the matter described as HBC Exhibit No.                                   2,        above,
    and a portion of which was included as item ( 5)                                         of    the
    Plaintiffs'              Exhibit        No.    17,    described hereinabove.
    e)         HBC Exhibit No.          5:     Copy of a sale with mortgage
    by Madison L.                  Funderburk to A. W.          Pettigrew,
    Incorporated, dated May 25,                           1927,  identical to
    Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 17,                           item ( 6),  described
    hereinabove.
    f)         HBC Exhibit No.          6:     Copy of an oil,           gas,         and
    mineral lease by A. W.                  Pettigrew, Inc., to H. H. Booker
    with assignment                  to Alfred M. Barbe, dated March 19,
    1928.
    g)         HBC Exhibit No.          7:     Copy of a release of an oil,
    gas,
    and mineral lease by Alfred M.                       Barbe to A. W.
    Pettigrew,              Inc.,     dated October 4,              1928.
    h)         HBC Exhibit No.       8:  Copy of a sale from A. W.
    Pettigrew,              Inc.,     to Ashby W. Pettigrew, dated May 12,
    1931,            identical to Plaintiffs``                    Exhibit No.     17,        item
    7),        described hereinabove.
    i)
    HBC Exhibit No. 9:
    A portion of a copy of an
    undated mineral lease by Ashby W. Pettigrew to Frank
    Wurzlow.
    j)  HBC Exhibit No. 10:  Copy of a cash sale from
    Ashby W. Pettigrew to Harry Bourg, dated May 1, 1934,
    identical to Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 17, item ( 8),
    described hereinabove.
    k)          HBC      Exhibit No.       11:      Copy of a compromise
    agreement between A. W.                       Pettigrew and the heirs of R. R.
    Barrow ( Irene             Barrow,        Zoe Barrow Topping,              Hallette
    Barrow Cole,              and Jennie Barrow Dawson),                     dated June 22,
    1935,           being a portion of Plaintiffs, Exhibit Nos. 2 and
    3,         described hereinabove,   and identical to Plaintiffs'
    Exhibit           No.    17,    item ( 10),          described hereinabove.
    1)          HBC Exhibit No.            12:
    C.
    Copy of a cash sale by Bagley
    Lirette to Harry Bourg and Ashby W. Pettigrew, dated
    August           7,    1935,    identical to Plaintiffs'                  Exhibit        No.
    17,         item ( 11),        described hereinabove.
    m)  HBC Exhibit No. 13: Copy of a sheriff' s sale from
    Ashland Planting & Manufacturing Company, Ltd., to
    Bagley C.             Lirette,     dated August 3,   1935, identical to
    Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.                 17, item ( 9),  described
    hereinabove.
    n)         HBC Exhibit No. 14:                  Copy of a release of an oil,
    gas,        and mineral lease,
    Pettigrew,
    by Frank Wurzlow to Ashby W.
    dated November 12,              1935.
    o)         HBC Exhibit No.             15:
    Copy of an agreement by and
    between Harry Bourg and Ashby W.                              Pettigrew,     dated
    February 19,              1938.
    p)         HBC Exhibit No.             16:
    Copy of a transfer agreement
    by and among the heirs of R. R.                         Barrow ( Irene            F.    Barrow,
    Zoe        B.    Topping,       Hallette B.          Cole, and Jennie             B.
    Dawson),           Christian G.             Cole,       and Harris         Gagne,,        dated
    June       22,     1935.
    q)        HBC Exhibit No.                 17:         Copy of an act of sale from
    Ashby W.           Pettigrew to Harry Bourg dated April 10,                                     1942,
    regarding property which included "[                                   ajll    that     portion
    of        Section 10 which lies                    West       of    the East    bank of         Four
    Point        Canal,"         without any designation of township or
    range,           identical. to Plaintiffs,                         Exhibit No.      15.
    r)  HBC Exhibit No. 18:    Copy of an act of sale from
    Harry Bourg to HBC dated April 7, 1955, regarding
    property which included 11[ aJ11 that portion of Section
    10        which    lies      West     of    the        East    bank of      Four    Point
    Canal," without any designation of township or range,
    and being described as part of the same property
    purchased by Harry Bourg from Ashby W.                                      Pettigrew under
    date        of April         10,     1942,       identical           to   Plaintiffs,
    Exhibit           No.    14.
    s)         HBC Exhibit            No.     19:         Copy of a boundary agreement
    by and between HBC and The Louisiana Land and
    Exploration Company, dated October 11, 1958.
    t)         HBC    Exhibit         No.     20:
    Copy of a right of way grant
    by HBC in favor of The Parish of Terrebonne, State of
    Louisiana, dated July 8, 1963, and a copy of a right of
    way deed by HBC in favor of The Police Jury of the
    Parish of            Terrebonne,            State        of    Louisiana,          dated October
    8, 1965.
    u)  HBC Exhibit No.  21:  Copy of a drainage servitude
    deed by HBC in favor of The Terrebonne Parish Police
    Jury, dated July 3,  1975.
    v)         HBC    Exhibit         No.     22:         Copy of a judgment rendered
    in the matter entitled Harry Bourg Corporation v.                                               Nora
    B.        Breaux,       docket       number        91308,          32nd Judicial         District
    Court,           rendered January 31,                    1991,       and signed February
    20,        1991.
    w)  HBC Exhibit No. 23:  Copy of a grant of servitude
    by HBC to Terrebonne Levee and Conservation District, -
    dated September 27,                      2012.
    x)  HBC Exhibit No. 24:  Copy of an agreement and
    amended servitudes by and between HBC and Terrebonne
    Parish Consolidated Government,                                    dated May 3,         2013.
    y)  HBC Exhibit No. 25:  Copy of a right- of- way grant
    by the State of Louisiana to HBC, dated October 17,
    2013.
    z)     HBC    Exhibit No.             26:         Copy of a grant of servitudes
    by and between HBC,                      Four      Point       Harbor,      L. L. C.,     and
    Terrebonne              Levee      and Conservation District,                        dated May
    4,        2016.
    aa)     HBC     Exhibit         No.     27:        Copy of proces verbal of
    inventory and appraisement from the matter entitled
    Succession of Hughes Joseph Breaux, docket number 4699,
    17th Judicial District Court, dated July 19, 1965.
    bb)     HBC Exhibit             No.     28:        Copies       of ( 1)   a    cattle
    grazing lease by HBC to Nora Bourg Breaux,                                          dated August
    20,        1968, (      2)     a cattle grazing lease by HBC to Nora
    Bourg Breaux,                  dated January 1, 1980, and, ( 3) a
    residential lease by HBC to Nora Bourg Breaux,                                            dated
    December 22,                 1987.
    7
    cc)        HBC       Exhibit       No.    29:            Copy of a cattle grazing and
    agricultural lease by                      HBC      to      Hilton Dumesnil,               dated
    August          20,    1968.
    dd)        HBC       Exhibit       No.    30:     Copy of a cattle grazing
    lease by HBC to Carl                      J.    Bourg, apparently dated January
    1,    1981.
    ee)  RBC Exhibit No. 31:  Copy of an amendment to the
    cattle grazing lease described as HBC Exhibit No. 30,
    above,          dated    September             9,   1987,         consisting         of    eleven
    pages,
    and recorded at entry number 812231 of the
    records          of    the Terrebonne Parish Clerk of                               Court.
    ff)        HBC       Exhibit No.          32:            Copy of a lease by HBC to
    Carl       J.    Bourg,       dated September 11,                        1988.
    gg)  HRC Exhibit No.                      33: (           1)    Copy of a lease by HBC
    to Herdis James Neil,                      dated April                  21,   1999, (     2)    copy of
    a lease by HBC to Herdis James Neil, dated April 21,
    2005, and ( 3)
    copy of HBC lease ledger regarding Herdis
    Neil.
    hh)        HBC       Exhibit No.          34:
    Copy of a lease agreement by
    HBC to Herdis             James Neil,               dated April               21,   2011.
    ii)  HBC Exhibit No. 35A: ( 1) COPY Of notarial act of
    correction by and between HBC and Herdis James Neil,
    dated June 28,                2017,       regarding a previous lease between
    the    parties,          and, (      2)    a list of documents recorded with
    the Terrebonne Parish Clerk of Court regarding Section
    10    of    T20S- R17E,         Terrebonne Parish,                        Louisiana,           between
    March       18,       1924,    and March            14,         2017.
    jj)        HBC Exhibit No.                35B:            Summary of tax assessments
    from 1924 to 1962 regarding property of Ashland
    Planting & Manufacturing Co., Inc., A. W. Pettigrew,
    Inc., Ashby W. Pettigrew, Harry Bourg, and HBC.
    kk)  HBC Exhibit No. 36:  Twenty- five photographs
    evidencing the placement of " posted" signs at various
    locations by HBC.
    11)        HBC       Exhibit       No.    36A:
    Five close- up photographs
    of " posted"
    signs by HBC.
    mm)        HBC Exhibit No.                37:
    Seven photographs evidencing
    historical fencing.
    nn)        HBC       Exhibit       No.    38:            Six photographs of brickwork
    associated with                an    old       sugar        mill,
    oo)        HBC Exhibit             No.    39:            Eight photographs evidencing
    agricultural             operations.
    pp)        HBC Exhibit No.                40:            Hand - colored " Map            of Lands
    Leased to Hilton Dumesnil by Harry Bourg Corporation,"
    dated August 20, 1968, depicting thirteen specific
    parcels of land in T20S- R17E, Terrebonne Parish,
    Louisiana.
    qq)        HBC Exhibit             No.    41:            Copies of four maps and/ or
    sketches associated with the lease of land to Carl J.
    Bourg.
    rr)        HBC       Exhibit       No.    42: (           1)    1964 United States
    Department of the Interior geological survey of " Lake
    Quitman Quadrangle,"                      including lands in T20S- R17R,
    Terrebonne             Parish,       Louisiana,                 and (    2)   Summary of tax
    assessments from 1924 to 1962 regarding property of
    1.1
    Ashland Planting & Manufacturing Co.,                                        Inc.,     A. W.
    Pettigrew,           Inc.,       Ashby W.               Pettigrew,         Harry Bourg,        and
    HBC,        said summary being identical to HBC Exhibit No.
    35B,        above.
    ss)  HBC Exhibit No. 43:  Color -coded " Map of Lands
    Leased to Hilton Dumesnil by Harry Bourg Corporation,"
    dated August              20,     1968,       depicting two specific parcels
    of    land     in    T20S- R17E,            Terrebonne               Parish,       Louisiana.
    tt)         HBC    Exhibit          No.    44:          Excerpt from a Tobin map
    with        reference        to      T20S- R17E,              Terrebonne         Parish,
    Louisiana,           depicting property " occupied by Harry
    Bourg."
    uu)         HBC    Exhibit No.              45:         Copy of " Plat Showing a
    Portion of Property Claimed by Harry Bourg Corporation
    being the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                    T20S- R17E,       Terrebonne
    Parish,        Louisiana,"             dated June                  12,   2017,
    prepared by
    Morris        P.    Hebert,          Inc.,
    reflecting Google Earth Imagery
    dated January 25, 2015,                        with aerial backing, added
    transparency, and hand- written annotations.
    vv)         HBC    Exhibit No.              46:         Copy of " Map of a Portion of
    Harry Bourg Corporation Lands and Lands of Harry Bourg
    Corporation Leased to Nora Breaux,                                       et al     in Sections 3,
    4,     9,    10 &    37,     T20S- R17E,                Terrebonne Parish,
    Louisiana,"               dated November 30,                       1988,    revised December
    12,     1988,       prepared by T.                  Baker          Smith &    Son,      Inc.
    ww)         HBC    Exhibit No.              47:         Copies of survey records of
    T.    Baker        Smith &        Son,       Inc.
    xx)         HBC Exhibit             No.     48:         Original          records of HBC
    evidencing payment of damages by Electronic
    Explorations,               Inc.,      to HBC            in    1961- 1962,         for " shooting
    damages"           on "
    Land of Harry Bourg."
    yy)         HBC    Exhibit          No.     49:         Handwritten records               of Nora
    Breaux regarding land leased from HBC.
    zz)         HBC Exhibit             No.     50:  Copies of selected business
    records of HBC leases                        from 1968 to 1993.
    aaa)         HBC    Exhibit          No.     51:         Copies of deer hunting
    permit agreements by HBC as grantee,                                        to various
    grantees,           from 2004          to 2017.
    bbb)  HBC Exhibit No. 52: (                                  1)    Copy of " Dirt Contract"
    dated April 9, 2014, by HBC,                                  as    seller,      and Low Land,
    as buyer, and, (                2)    copy of " Supplemental                      and Amended
    Dirt -Contract"
    between the same parties dated February
    26,     2015.
    ccc)         HBC    Exhibit          No.     56:         Copy of a June 19,               2018,
    report        from the          land abstractor,                     Gordon White,         with
    attachments               thereto.
    ddd)         HBC    Exhibit No.              57:         Copy of the March 27,                 2017,
    report        from the          land abstractor,                     Daniel      J.   Toups,
    regarding the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                       T20S- R17E,     together
    with a         Abstractor' s Opening Note," from
    copy of "                                                                        the
    supplemental abstract of title by Toups Title
    identified as no.                    2017- 202,           and a          copy of      an excerpt
    from a Tobin map with reference to T20S- R17E,
    Terrebonne           Parish,          Louisiana,            depicting property
    occupied by Harry Bourg,"                           being the same Tobin map
    identified as HBC Exhibit No. 44, described
    hereinabove, and all identical to portions of
    Plaintiffs'               Exhibit      No.         1,    described hereinabove.
    eee)     HBC    Exhibit        No.    58:        Copy of a May 24,               2018,
    Expert       Report"        from the land surveyor,                    John     C.
    Mattingly,       with       exhibits     attached,          to    wit:
    Exhibit    1:         Identical to HBC Exhibit No. 45,
    described           hereinabove, without the Google Earth
    Imagery dated January 25,                    2015,       added
    transparency,           or hand- written annotations.
    Exhibit    2:         Identical       to HBC Exhibit No.                  45,
    described hereinabove,                    without    the            Google Earth
    Imagery dated January 25,                    2015,       or hand- written
    annotations.
    Exhibit        3:
    Four plats dated May 22, 2018,
    overdrawn on satellite imagery depicting lands
    in Section 10,           T20S- R17E,         Terrebonne               Parish,
    Louisiana.
    Exhibit    4:         Plat dated May 22,             2018,            showing
    the location of various posted signs,
    historical fencing,              and       old   sugar         mill
    brickworks           in Section 10,          T20S- R17E,              Terrebonne
    Parish,    Louisiana.
    Exhibit 4. 1:  Identical to HBC Exhibit No.                                    36,
    described hereinabove.
    Exhibit    4. 2:        Identical          to HBC Exhibit No. 37
    and HBC Exhibit No.              38,       described hereinabove.
    Exhibit    5:
    Two plats dated May 22, 2018,
    overdrawn on satellite imagery dated 1953,
    depicting lands in Section 10, T20S- R17E,
    Terrebonne           Parish,    Louisiana,          one        of    which
    includes an added transparency depicting fence
    lines and other improvements.
    Exhibit    6:         Identical to Exhibit                5,        above,
    except the satellite imagery is dated April 19,
    1956.
    Exhibit    7:         Identical       to Exhibit          5,        above,
    except the satellite imagery is dated March 8,
    1957.
    Exhibit    8:         Identical       to Exhibit          5,        above,
    except the satellite imagery is dated February
    19,    1965.
    Exhibit    9:         Identical       to Exhibit          5,        above,
    except the satellite imagery is dated March 19,
    1981.
    Exhibit    10:         Identical          to Exhibit           5,    above,
    except the satellite imagery is dated May 9,
    1984.
    Exhibit    11:         Identical to Exhibit                    5,    above,
    except the satellite imagery is dated October
    16,    1987.
    Exhibit    12:         Identical          to Exhibit           5,    above,
    except the satellite imagery is dated November
    10,    1996.
    Exhibit    13:         Identical          to HBC Exhibit No.                  46.
    Exhibit    14:         Copy of undated " Survey Map NE 1( 4
    10
    T20S- R17E Terrebonne                     Parish,          Louisiana,"
    prepared by The Louisiana Land and Exploration
    Houma,
    Company,          Civil Engineering Department,
    Louisiana.
    Exhibit 15:  Survey " Field Note Records,"
    neither referred to nor explained in the expert
    2018,
    report of             John C.      Mattingly dated May 24,
    to which this Exhibit 15                             is attached as part of
    HBC        Exhibit       No.     58.
    Exhibit           16:     Copies         of        various       agricultural             and
    cattle           leases,       and other documents,                         consisting
    of     documents (         1)     identical               to    a portion of          the
    map constituting Exhibit 14 attached as part of
    HBC        Exhibit       No.     58,     with        the       addition       of
    handwritten designated tracts, ( 2)                                     identical           to
    HBC Exhibit              No.     22, (        3)    identical          to    part    of
    HBC        Exhibit       No.     27, (        4)    identical          to    HBC
    Exhibit          No.identical to HBC Exhibit
    28, (    5)
    No. 29, ( 6) identical to HBC Exhibit No. 30,
    7) identical to HBC Exhibit No. 31, but
    including a total of twenty pages ( instead of
    eleven          pages),       and apparently including a draft
    agreement and/ or draft corporate resolution,
    8) identical to HBC Exhibit No. 32, (   9)
    identical to HBC Exhibit No. 33, (   10) identical
    to HBC Exhibit No.  34, ( 11) not introduced into
    evidence as a separate exhibit of HBC, but
    being a copy of a lease agreement by HBC to
    Herdis          James     Neil,         dated April             21,    2017, (       12)
    identical              to part        of HBC Exhibit No.                    35A,    and,
    13)     hand -colored sketch of tracts of land in
    Section          10,     T20S- R17E,              Terrebonne          Parish,
    Louisiana.
    During the course of the trial,                                  the    court        received
    evidence by way of the testimony of a number of witnesses called
    by the parties.              Seven witnesses                   testified on behalf                 of      the
    original plaintiffs Gaidry and Schwing,                                     including:
    a) Daniel J. Toups, an expert land title abstractor
    and author of the report and two supplemental title
    abstracts identified as parts of Plaintiffs, Exhibit
    No,    1;
    b)    Roger        Webb,       a Gaidry shareholder who testified as
    to his historic use of                        the land in the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section           10,   T20S- R17E        of     Terrebonne             Parish;
    c)    Shannon          J.     Danos,     a commercial                 fisherman who
    testified as              to his historic use of the land in the NW
    1/ 4   of    Section 10,              T20S- R17E            of   Terrebonne           Parish,
    under the authority of Gaidry;
    d)    Rebecca Gaidry Richey,                             Gaidry president and
    shareholder,              who    testified about                      her management             of
    Gaidry properties,                    including the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,
    T20S- R17E          of    Terrebonne            Parish;
    e)    Wilson " Doc"             Gaidry,         Jr.,        seventy- nine year old
    Gaidry officer and shareholder,                                   who testified regarding
    the historic use                 and management                   of    the NW       1/ 4   of
    Section           10,    T20S- R17E of Terrebonne Parish,                                 by Gaidry
    and members              of the C. S. Gaidry family;
    f)   Stacie           Rabon,     the manager of Schwing,                           who    testified
    11
    regarding its management of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,
    T20S- R17E             of Terrebonne                 Parish;         and,
    g)   Leo Bickham,                   a member of Schwing who testified
    regarding his use of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                          T20S-
    R17E       of    Terrebonne               Parish,          under the authority of
    Schwing.
    The following individuals testified at trial on behalf
    of    the    original           defendants HBC                 and Low        Land,     including:
    a)    Leonard           J.    Chauvin,           Jr.,     a   Louisiana      registered
    land surveyor,                    who     testified           with    particular        reference
    to       HSC     Exhibit          No.     46,      a survey map prepared by him;
    b)     John Mattingly,                    a   Louisiana         registered     land
    surveyor,              and author of                 the report        identified as HBC
    Exhibit           No.       58;
    c)     Gordon White,                 an expert          land title abstractor and
    author of the                    report identified as HBC Exhibit No.                         56;
    d)     Herdis       Neil,           a Terrebonne Parish cattleman who
    testified regarding his use of the NW 1/ 4 of Section
    10, T20S- R17E of Terrebonne Parish, including his use
    as       lessee        of    HBC;
    e)     Nolan Bergeron,                    seventy- four year old grandson of
    Harry Bourg,              who testified about the historic use of
    the        NW 1/ 4      of Section 10, T20S- R17E of Terrebonne
    Parish by HBC and the Harry Bourg family;                                         and,
    f)     Ronnie       Bergeron,           grandson of Harry Bourg and
    president              of    HBC,        who testified regarding the historic
    use        of    the    NW       1/ 4    of       Section     10,    T20S- R17E    of
    Terrebonne              Parish,
    by HBC and the Harry Bourg family,
    and his management of HBC.
    The court has thoroughly reviewed in great detail all of
    the pleadings,                 exhibits,              testimonial           evidence,     and    memoranda
    offered by the parties,                           and has thoroughly considered the
    arguments           of       counsel.            The       court    has rendered judgment            in
    accordance with                 these           reasons       for judgment.
    The following facts have been well- established by the
    evidence adduced in this                              case.
    HBC' s       Record Title
    The following is a summary of the critical juridical
    acts in the record chain of title of HBC to the NW 1/ 4 of Section
    10,    T20S- R17E,             Terrebonne                 Parish,     as set forth by the testimony
    and    report           of    Gordon       White,           the expert land title abstractor
    called at trial by HBC.
    By sheriff' s sale on May 14,                                 1927,    recorded May 25,
    1927,           Madison L.
    Funderburk acquired record ownership
    of "       the       North West           Quarter ( NWZ/ 4)...             of   Section Ten
    10),
    containing one hundred and fifty nine and sixty
    hundredths ( 159. 60) ...                          acres...
    being in Township Twenty
    12
    20)     South,           Range          Seventeen (             17)    East,           S. E. D. (       La)       West
    of   the Miss.  River," from Ashland Planting and Mfg.
    Co.,   Ltd. ( See HBC Exhibit Nos. 2 and 4, and item ( 5)
    of     Plaintiffs'              Exhibit          No.        17).
    1927,       and
    By act of sale with mortgage dated May 25,
    recorded that same day,                               Madison L.              Funderburk                conveyed
    as described, to A. W. Pettigrew,
    the same property,
    incorporated,                  a/ k/ a A. W. Pettigrew, Inc. ( See HBC
    Exhibit           No.     5,        and item 6             of    Plaintiffs'                 Exhibit          No.
    17.)
    By act of sale dated May 12,                                     1931, and recorded May 13,
    1931,        A. W.        Pettigrew,             Inc.,          conveyed the same property,
    as     described,               to Ashby W.                Pettigrew. (                 See HBC Exhibit
    No.'    8,        and     item       7   of     Plaintiffs'             Exhibit              No.       17.)
    By act of sale dated May 1, 1934, and recorded May 2,
    1934, Ashby W. Pettigrew conveyed the following
    described property to Harry Bourg:
    All       that        portion of             the       North- East             quarter
    NE1/ 4)          of    Section          10.,       T.    20.,        S.     R.      17
    East,        which          lies    East of             Four     Point          Canal;
    Bounded on the West by Four Point Canal, on
    the North by fractional section Three of T.
    20.,  S.  R.  17 East,  on the East by Section
    11.  T.  20.,  S. R.  17 E., and on the South by
    the     South -East              quarter           of     said    Section             10."
    This act of sale contained the following additional
    language:
    It     is    the       intention of                the vendor to sell
    and he        does,         by these presents sell and
    convey unto said Harry Bourg all that
    property which Vendor owns lying East of Four
    Point        Canal          and West          of    Bayou        Sale,
    regardless of accuracy and detail of
    description...."
    See HBC Exhibit No.                           10,    and item 8              of Plaintiffs'
    Exhibit            No.     17.)
    By act of sale dated April 10, 1942, and recorded April
    13, 1942, Ashby W. Pettigrew conveyed the following
    described property to Harry Bourg:
    All       that portion of Section 10 which lies
    West       of the East bank of Four -Point Canal."
    This act of sale contained the following additional
    language:
    It is the intention of Ashby W.                                           Pettigrew             to
    herein           sell,       and    it        is    the    intention of                   said
    Harry Bourg to herein buy all of the property
    which said Ashby W.                           Pettigrew owns                    in
    Sections           10,       15,    22        and     27. of     T.        
    20 S. R. 17
    E,    whether lying on the West side of [                                             or]    the
    East       side        of    the    aforesaid              Four -Point                Canal,
    and,        if    it    should hereafter be                       found              that
    said Ashby W.                 Pettigrew owns any property in
    said        Sections          10, 15, 22 and 27 which has not
    been included                 in the within sale, then and in
    that event the said Ashby W.                                   Pettigrew
    obligates himself                        to    sign and execute                       an act
    of correction transferring the ownership of
    such property to the said Harry Bourg."
    13
    See       HBC Exhibit             No.    17    and Plaintiffs'                      Exhibit    No.
    15.)
    By act of sale dated April 7, 1955, and recorded that
    same day, Harry Bourg conveyed the following described
    property to HBC:
    SAIL      that portion of Section: 10 which lies
    West      of the East bank of Four Point Canal."
    Being the same property purchased by Harry
    Bourg from Ashby W. Pettigrew under date of
    April       10,    1942."
    See    HBC     Exhibit        No.    18     and Plaintiffs'                     Exhibit    No.
    14.)
    Gaidry andSchwinq' s                    Record Title
    According to Daniel J.                         Toups,     the expert               land title
    abstractor who testified at trial on behalf of Gaidry and
    Schwing,        the following constitute the important links in the
    common chain of record title claimed by both plaintiffs, Gaidry
    and Schwing,           with regard to the NW                      1/ 4    of Section 10,                 T20S- R17E,
    in Terrebonne Parish.
    By act of sale dated June 5, 1845, and recorded January
    24,  1848, Elisha Stevens conveyed to Robert Ruffin
    Barrow,  an undivided one- half interest in and to the NW
    1/ 4 of Section 10, T20S- R17E in Terrebonne Parish.  The
    act did not declare the marital status of Robert Ruffin
    Barrow. (           See     Plaintiffs'              Exhibit        No.    1,        H. C.    Wurzlow
    Abstract            No.     440,    page       6.)
    By judgment rendered June 25, 1866, and recorded
    November 19, 1869, the community of acquets and gains
    existing between Robert Ruffin Barrow and his wife,
    Volumnia Hunley Barrow,                         was terminated. ( See
    Plaintiffs'                Exhibit       No.    1, H. C. Wurzlow Abstract                           No.
    440,       page      8.)
    By tax sale dated November 19,                                1873,        and        recorded
    December 12,  1873,  total ownership of the                                             NW 1/ 4 of
    Section 10,  T20S- R17E, Terrebonne Parish,
    including the
    interest of Robert Ruffin Barrow acquired from Elisha
    Stevens on June 5, 1845, was acquired by Peter Berger
    and Frederick Bogardus. (                             See    Plaintiffs'                Exhibit      No.
    1,     H. C.      Wurzlow Abstract                   No.    440,     page        852.)
    By confirmation of tax sale dated June 3,                                               1874,    and
    recorded August                4,    1874,
    title to the property
    described above was confirmed in Peter Berger and
    Frederick Bogardus. (                      See        Plaintiffs'           Exhibit           No.    1,
    H. C. Wurzlow Abstract                     No.        440,    page        855.)
    By act of sale dated May 7, 1874, and recorded that
    same day, Frederick Bogardus conveyed his undivided
    interest in the property described above to John
    Berger. (            See     Plaintiffs'              Exhibit        No.        1,    H. C.    Wurzlow
    Abstract            No.     440,    page       858.)
    By act of sale dated April 30, 1879, and recorded May
    1, 1879, John Berger and Peter Berger conveyed their
    undivided interests in the property described above to
    Robert         R.    Barrow and Van P.                     Winder,        one- half to each.
    14
    See     Plaintiffs'                Exhibit        No.         1,    H. C.    Wurzlow Abstract
    No.     440,       page       887.)
    By counter letter dated November 2,                                          1883,        and    recorded
    November            12,    1883,        Van    P.       Winder acknowledged that his
    one- half interest in the property described above " was
    only nominally placed in his name,"                                          and that it "was
    really the paraphernal property of "                                         Mrs. Volumnia R.
    Barrow wife              of    William J.              Slatter." (             See        Plaintiffs'
    Exhibit           No.    1,    H. C.    Wurzlow Abstract No.                             440,    page
    89G.)
    By judgment of possession signed January 15,                                                    1941,       in
    the matter of                 Succession of Mrs.                      V. R.    Woods            Widow       of
    T.    Albert        Woods,
    and recorded January 16, 1901, Mrs.
    Clara        K.    Slatter,
    wife of Wilson J. Gaidry, and Miss
    Annis Slatter were recognized as the sole heirs of Mrs.
    Volumnia Roberta Barrow, widow by second marriage of T.
    Albert Woods, and the owners " in the proportion of the
    undivided one- half each,                          of all the property left by
    deceased." (  See Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1, H. C.
    Wurzlow Abstract No. 440,  page 99, and Plaintiffs'
    Exhibits Nos.  2 and 3.)
    By compromise agreement dated June 22,                                          1935,           and
    recorded that same day,                    Miss Irene Barrow,                              Mrs.       Zoe
    Barrow Topping,                 Mrs,     Hallette Barrow Cole,                             and    Mrs.
    Jennie Barrow Dawson agreed,                                   for consideration
    received,
    that the ownership of Section 10,                                          T20S- R17E,
    Terrebonne Parish,                     belonged to A. W.                 Pettigrew. ( See
    Plaintiffs'              Exhibit No.              1,        H. C.    Wurzlow Abstract No.
    440,     page       160,       Plaintiffs'                  Exhibit Nos.             2    and    3,
    Plaintiffs'              Exhibit No.              17,        item ( 10),        and HBC           Exhibit
    No.     11.)
    By judgment of possession signed April 14,                                                 1938,       in the
    matter of           Succession of Robert Ruffin Barrow,                                          and
    recorded May 14,         1938, Mrs. Jennie Tennant, widow of
    Robert         Ruffin Barrow, was recognized as owner of one-
    half of all community property,                                      and usufructuary of the
    deceased' s one- half of community property and all
    separate property,                     and Miss              Irene F.         Barrow,           Mrs.    Zoe
    Barrow,           widow of Robert Topping,                            Mrs.     Harriette              Barrow,
    wife of           Christian Grenes                 Cole,            and Mrs.     Jennie           Barrow,
    wife     of       Harris       P.     Dawson,          were         recognized            as    the    owners
    in the proportions of an undivided one- fourth each" of
    the separate property of the deceased, subject to the
    usufruct           in favor of Mrs.
    Jennie Tennant, widow of
    Robert         Ruffin         Barrow. (
    See Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.                                                      1,
    H. C.    Wurzlow Abstract No. 440, page 156.)
    By affidavit of heirship dated February 17,                                                    1947,    and
    recorded February 19,                        1947,           Hallette Barrow,                   wife    of       C.
    Grenes Cole,              confirmed the death of her mother,                                          Mrs.
    Jennie         Tennent,         widow        of    Robert            Ruffin     Barrow,           on May
    27,     1942,
    and confirmed the death of her sister, Mrs.
    Zoe Barrow, widow of Robert Topping, who died intestate
    and without issue on December 28, 1939. ( See
    Plaintiffs'              Exhibit        No.       1,        H. C.    Wurzlow Abstract                  No.
    440,     page       158).
    Ownership of the Property Based on Record Title
    Based on the acts described above and relied upon by the
    witnesses     Gordon White and Daniel                               J.    Toups during their court
    testimony,        the following relevant conclusions can be drawn.
    As     a result         of     the April               30,    1879,     sale by John Berger
    15
    and Peter Berger to Robert R.                   Barrow    and Van P.      Winder,     and    the
    subsequent       November    2,    1883,    counter letter by Van P.               Winder,       the
    NW 1/ 4   of    Section 10,       T20S- R17E in Terrebonne Parish was owned
    one- half by Robert R.            Barrow and one- half by Mrs.              Volumnia        R.
    Barrow    Slatter.
    Mr.
    Barrow' s one- half interest in the property
    purportedly was subsequently acquired by Harry Bourg as a result
    of purchases from Ashby W.             Pettigrew on May 1,               1934,     and April
    10,   1942.
    Critical to the record ownership of that one- half
    interest in the property by Mr.                      Pettigrew was the June 22,             1935,
    compromise agreement by and between him and the four daughters of
    Robert Ruffin Barrow,             and the belated February 17,               1947,
    affidavit of heirship confirming the death of Robert Ruffin
    Barrow' s widow in 1942.
    Harry Bourg subsequently transferred his
    ownership of the property at issue to HBC.
    None of the transactions referred to in the previous
    paragraph by and between Ashby W.                     Pettigrew,     Harry Bourg,      the
    daughters of Robert Ruffin Barrow,                     and HBC addressed the record
    ownership of the one- half interest in the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,
    T20S- R17E,      by Mrs.    Volumnia       R.    Barrow       Slatter.
    The documentary
    evidence offered by Gaidry and Schwing confirm that her one- half
    ownership interest passed to her daughters Clara Slatter Gaidry
    and Annis Slatter,          and   through them,
    to Gaidry and Schwing,
    respectively.         No documentary evidence of any kind has been
    received by the court too indicate that Clara Slatter Gaidry
    and/ or Annis Slatter and/ or their successors conveyed any part of
    this undivided one- half interest to HBC or its ancestors in
    title.
    The court notes that in their post -trial memorandum,                              the
    plaintiffs       allege    that   Daniel        J.   Toups,    their " expert      in the
    field of abstracting titles," contends that the plaintiffs are
    the current owners of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10."                           Mr.    Toups'
    letter of March 27,          2017,
    included as part of Plaintiffs'                  Exhibit
    No.   1 belies such a conclusion.                    The following excerpt from Mr.
    Toups'
    letter comports with the finding of the court:
    16
    Harry Bourg Corporation as successor to the interest of
    Ashby Pettigrew via the Barrow Sisters should be
    presently the owner of an undivided 1/ 2 interest in the
    captioned property.  C. S. Gaidry, Inc., as successor of
    the interest of the Gaidrys via Clara K. Slatter Gaidry
    should be owner of an undivided 1/ 4 interest.                         The
    Schwings as successors of the interest of Annis Slatter
    Hickman should be the owners of an undivided 1/ 4
    interest.
    The plaintiffs allege Ashby W.                 Pettigrew did not acquire
    ownership of any portion of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                              T20S- R17E,
    through Madison Funderburk by way of Mr. Funderburk' s acquisition
    of immovable property from Ashland Planting and Mfg.                              Co.,     Ltd.,
    by sheriff' s sale on May 14,               1927.          The plaintiffs allege the
    property description reflected by the sheriff' s sale repeated an
    error made in the sale from Dulac Planting & Manufacturing
    Company to Albert P.           Cantrelle,         dated October 26,         1910,        and   which
    was carried through juridical acts thereafter, including the sale
    from Albert P.
    Cantrelle to Ashland Planting and Manufacturing
    Company,        Limited,    dated February 16,             1917,
    and the mortgage by
    Ashland Planting and Manufacturing Company,                         Limited,      in favor of
    Bank of Terrebonne and Savings Bank,                       dated March 8,      1924.        The
    plaintiffs point out that the description used in these acts was
    the North West Quarter ( NW1/ 4)..,                  of   Section Ten ( 10),
    containing -
    one hundred and fifty nine and sixty hundredths
    159. 60) ...    acres...
    being in Township Twenty ( 20)                South,    Range
    Seventeen ( 17)       East,    S. E. D. (   La)      West of the Miss.       River."
    According to the plaintiffs, Dulac Planting and Manufacturing
    Company did not own the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 of T20S- R17E,
    containing 160 acres,           at the time it sold the same to Albert P.
    Cantrelle.        Instead,     it owned the NE 1/ 4 of Section 10,                   T20S- R17E
    containing 159. 60          acres.    As    a   result,      the plaintiffs argue HBc
    did not acquire record title to the NW 1/ 4                        of   Section   10,     T20S-
    R17E.
    The court' s review of the pertinent public acts tends to
    confirm that the plaintiffs are correct that Dulac Planting and
    Manufacturing Company did not own the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                   T20S-
    R17E,
    and did not validly convey the same to Albert P.                            Cantrelle.
    However,    the plaintiffs"
    argument overlooks the compromise
    17
    agreement by and between Ashby W.               Pettigrew and the four
    daughters of Robert Ruffin Barrow dated June 22,                           1935,       through
    which it appears Harry Bourg did thereafter acquire a one- half
    interest in the property at issue.
    As a result of the foregoing analysis,                       the    court       finds
    that record title to the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 of T20S- R17E at the
    time of trial of this matter was vested one- half in HBC and one-
    half in Gaidry and Schwing,           i. e.,    HBC,     Gaidry,        and Schwing were
    co- owners of the property.
    Acquisitive Prescription
    As co- owners of an undivided interest in the land in
    question,
    the plaintiffs certainly are entitled to seek redress
    from this court for the removal of dirt from their property
    pursuant to the contract between HBC and Low Land for the
    attendant consequences         thereof.        However,          in defense to the
    plaintiffs'       claims,   HBC has asserted,           among other things,                  that    it
    is entitled to a declaratory judgment from this court decreeing
    that HBC is the owner of the property to the exclusion of Gaidry
    and Schwing based on acquisitive prescription.                           As     sole    owner       of
    the property, HBC contends that the plaintiffs can have no claims
    against    it.
    An understanding of the principles of acquisitive
    prescription established by the Legislature is important to a
    resolution of the issues         in this case.            Acquisitive prescription
    is a mode of acquiring ownership or other real rights by
    possession for a period of time. (               La.     C. C.    art.     3446.)
    Ownership and other real rights in immovables may be acquired by
    the prescription of ten years (           La.    C. C.    art.     3473)       or     the
    prescription of thirty years ( La.              C. C.    art.     3486.)        All     private
    things,    including land,      are   susceptible         of prescription,                  unless
    otherwise excluded by specific legislation. (                       La.       C. C.    art.
    3485.)
    There is no doubt that ownership of the land at issue in
    this case is susceptible of acquisitive prescription.
    The requisites for the acquisitive prescription of ten
    years    are (   1)   possession of   ten years, (        2)     good    faith,        and (   3)
    18
    just     title. (        La.    C. C.      art.    3475.)            There    is no      requirement            of
    good faith or just title to acquire the ownership of immovable
    property based on possession for thirty years. (                                        La.     C. C.    art.
    3486.)       However,          the rules regarding possession for the purpose
    of acquisitive prescription of ten years apply to possession for
    the purpose of acquisitive prescription of thirty years. (                                                  La.
    C. C.    art.     3488.)
    Possession is defined as                    the detention or enjoyment of a
    corporeal thing,               such as       land. (      La.        C. C.   3421).       In    order      to
    acquire possession for the purpose of acquisitive prescription,
    one     must (    1)    intend to possess as owner and (                           2)    take    corporeal
    possession of            the    land in question,                    that    is,   he must exercise
    physical         acts    of    use,     detention,          or       enjoyment        over the          land.
    La.     C. C.    art.     3424     and     3425.)        One is presumed to intend to
    possess      as    owner       unless "      he began to possess in the name of and
    for another." (               La.   C. C_    art. 3427.)
    Possession for the purpose of acquisitive prescription
    must begin with corporeal possession,                                  and it must be continuous,
    uninterrupted,             peaceable,            public,     and       unequivocal. (            La.      C. C.
    art.     3476.)         Acquisitive prescription does not run in favor of a
    precarious         possessor,           i. e.,
    one who possesses without any intent
    to own another' s              interest,          such as        a    lessee.         Under our          law,     a
    co- owner is           a precarious possessor. (                       La.    C. C.     arts.    3477        3437
    and     3439.)         A precarious possessor is presumed to possess for
    another even though he actually intends to possess for himself.
    La.     C. C.    art.     3438.)          This is a rebuttable presumption ( La.                                 C. C.
    art.     3438,     comment (        b)),     and a     co- owner or his universal
    successor may commence to prescribe when he demonstrates " by
    overt and unambiguous acts sufficient to give notice to his co-
    owner"
    that he intends to possess the property for himself. (                                                    La.
    C. C.    arts.     3478       and   3439.)         In light of the specific presumption
    established by Louisiana Civil Code article 3438,                                          the     more
    general presumption of Louisiana article 3427 regarding one' s
    intention to possess does not apply to a precarious possessor who
    is a co- owner.
    19
    The acquisition and recordation of a title from a person
    other    than    a    co- owner "   may mark the commencement of
    prescription.,, ( La.           C. C.   art,    3478.)            The particular successor of
    a precarious possessor who takes possession under an act
    translative of ownership possesses for himself,                                     and    prescription
    runs in his favor from the commencement of his possession. (                                              La.
    C. C.   art.    3479.)
    Good faith"         in the context of acquisitive prescription
    of ten years is defined as the possessor' s reasonable belief " in
    light of objective considerations,                       that he is the owner of the
    thing he possesses.,, (             La.   C. C.      art.     3480.)         Good faith           is
    presumed and neither error of fact nor law defeats the
    presumption.           The presumption is rebutted " on proof                              that     the
    possessor knows,          or should know,             that he is not owner of the
    thing he possesses.,, (             La.   C. C.      art.     3481.)
    Good faith need only
    exist at the commencement of the possession and,                                      subsequent bad
    faith does not prevent the accrual of the acquisitive
    prescription of          ten years. (          La.    C. C.    art.        3482,..)
    Louisiana Civil Code article 3483 defines " just title"
    with regard to acquisitive prescription as follows:
    A just title is a juridical act,                       such     as      a   sale,
    exchange,       or donation,
    sufficient to transfer ownership
    or    another    real    right.        The act must he written, - valid
    in    form,
    and filed for registry in the conveyance
    records of the parish in which the immovable is
    situated.
    One who possesses a part of an immovable by virtue of a
    title is deemed to have constructive possession within the limits
    of his       title.     In the absence of title,                   one has possession only
    of the area he actually possesses. (                        La.    C. C.     art.     3426.)         A just
    title to an undivided interest in an immovable is a just title
    only as to the interest transferred. (                            La.   C. C.       art.    3484.)        When
    a co- owner of an immovable transfers the ownership of the entire
    immovable to a third person,                   the transferee acquires the
    undivided interest of the transferor,                         and in addition,                 he
    acquires a just title to the remaining parts.                                   Thus,       the
    transferee acquires the ownership of the entire immovable in ten
    years if he is in good faith and if his possession is
    20
    sufficiently adverse to the interests of the remaining co- owners.
    La.     C. C.    art. 3484,       comment (     b).)       If    the transferee' s              claim of
    ownership is based on acquisitive prescription of thirty years,
    his possession extends only to that which he actually possessed,
    and constructive possession does not apply. (                               La.     C. C.    art.
    3487.)
    It is in light of -these principles of Louisiana law that
    the court has assessed the claims of acquisitive prescription set
    forth by HBC.              At   the    outset,    the court notes           that HBC has
    correctly pointed out that it bears the burden of proving its
    acquisitive prescription claims by a preponderance of the
    evidence.              Delacroix Corporation v.             Perez,    
    794 So. 2d 862
     ( La.
    App.     4   Cir.       11/ 08/ 40),    writ denied,        
    782 So. 2d 635
     (    La.     1/ 26/ 01).
    However,
    HBC' s burden may be affected by the rebuttable
    presumptions established by law and described elsewhere herein.
    Good Faith
    Possession of land for the purpose of ten years
    acquisitive prescription must be in good faith,                                 that    is,      the
    possessor must have a reasonable belief that he is the owner of
    the    land.
    The court is required to evaluate the reasonableness
    of that belief in light of objective considerations.                                        As   pointed
    out    above,
    the good faith of one who possesses as owner is
    presumed,
    and it is incumbent upon the one who challenges that
    good faith to prove that the other knew or should have known that
    he was not the owner.
    The good faith possession of the property at issue by
    Harry Bourg beginning with his purchase from Ashby W.                                       Pettigrew
    on April         10,    1942,    is presumed.            Gaidry and Schwing have not
    furnished to the court any evidence,                         credible      or     otherwise,           to
    show that Harry Bourg did not have a reasonable belief that he
    was the owner of the entirety of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                         T20S-
    R17E upon the sale to him by Pettigrew.                            There is no evidence to
    suggest that Harry Bourg ever acknowledged his co- owner status to
    anyone.
    Simply put,          the court has not received any evidence
    upon which it could base a finding that Gaidry and Schwing have
    21
    overcome the presumption of good faith on the part of Harry
    Bourg.
    The court is satisfied that HBC has established the good
    faith of Harry Bourg in connection with its claim of acquisitive
    prescription.
    Just      Title
    In connection with its claim of ten years acquisitive
    prescription,
    and in addition to its burden of proving good
    faith,
    HBC bears the burden of proving that it possessed the land
    in question pursuant to a just title.
    As pointed out in Delacroix Corporation v                                    Dean,   
    901 So. 2d 1188
     (      La.    App.    4   Cir.   4/   13/ 05):
    A just title is a juridical act, such as a sale,
    sufficient to transfer ownership, which must be in
    proper form and be properly recorded.                              La.    C. C.    art.
    3483.     Comment (        b)   of the 1982 Revision Comments to
    Civil Code article 3483 states that the law merely
    requires an act which,
    owner,
    if it were executed by the true
    would have conveyed ownership.
    Louisiana law has long held that in order to convey
    property, an act of sale must clearly describe the
    property so that it may be located.  As the Louisiana
    Supreme Court has stated:
    The description in a deed must be such that
    the property intended to be conveyed can be
    located and identified,                   and the       general    rule
    is that the description must fully appear
    within the four corners of the instrument
    itself, or that the deed should refer to some
    map,       plat or deed as part of the description,
    so that the same may be clear.
    The juridical acts upon which HBC bases its claim in
    this case consist of the following:
    a)
    Sheriff' s sale on May 14,                   1927,    by which the
    property of Ashland Planting and Mfg.                             Co.,    Ltd.,    was    conveyed      to
    Madison     L.    Funderburk;
    b)
    Act of sale dated May 25,                    1927,    from Madison L.
    Funderburk to A. W.             Pettigrew,           Incorporated,         a/ k/ a A.     W.
    Pettigrew,        Inc.;
    c)
    Act of sale dated May 12,                    1931,    from A. W.         Pettigrew,
    Inc.,    to Ashby W.           Pettigrew;
    d)
    Act of sale dated May 1,                    1934,    from Ashby W.
    22
    Pettigrew to Harry Bourg;
    e)    Act     of sale dated April                 10,     1942,    from Ashby W.
    Pettigrew to Harry Bourg;                         and,
    f)    Act     of       sale   dated April         7,     1955,    from ' Harry Bourg to
    HBC.
    The court has reviewed each of these acts and finds them
    to be in proper form and finds that they were properly recorded
    in the conveyance records of Terrebonne Parish.
    Just title does not mean valid and legal title.                                          As
    explained hereinabove,                       these acts did not transfer merchantable
    title to or ownership of the undivided one- half interest of the
    NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                     T20S- R17E,
    presently owned by Gaidry and
    Schwing,      to Harry Bourg or HBC.                            A just title is a juridical act
    intended to have legal consequences.                                  It is an act translative of
    ownership,          such       as     a   Sale.
    A just title need not be derived from
    the true owner because if that were the case,                                        acquisitive
    prescription would not be an issue.                                  The law merely requires an
    act    which,
    if it had been executed by the true owner,                                   would have
    conveyed ownership. (                      La.    C. C.     art.    3483,     comment (   b)-)
    At issue in this case is the ownership of the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section 10,             T20S- R17E in Terrebonne Parish.                            Based on     the
    evidence offered at                   trial,
    the court notes that the property
    consists of 158. 774 acres bordered on the east by the NE 1/ 4 of
    Section      10,
    on the south by the SW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                               on the west
    by Section 9 Of T20S- R17R,                        and on the north by Sections 3 and 37
    of    T20S- R17E.          The Four Point                  Canal,   sometimes referred to as                the
    Four Point Bayou,
    and the adjacent Four Point Road on the western
    side    of   the        canal,
    almost completely traverse the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section 10 on its eastern side,                              entering on the          east     from the
    northerly part of the NE 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                    and exiting onto the
    eastern side of the SW 1/ 4 of Section 10.
    Only a relatively
    small part of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 is located on the eastern
    side of Four Point Canal,                         i. e.,     between Four Point Canal on the
    west and the boundary line between the NW 1/ 4 and NE 1/ 4 of
    Section 10 on the east.
    Entirely within this relatively small
    23
    part   of     the    NW    1/ 4    of    Section         10,        there    is     located 55%,             or   5. 416
    acres,      of    the     excavated            area    or " dirt         pit' s which has led to the
    instant       litigation.
    It should be noted that the geographical landmark known
    as Bayou Sale is located entirely to the east of the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section       10.
    The act of sale from Ashby W.                              Pettigrew to Harry Bourg
    dated May 1,            1934,      purported to convey to Harry Bourg,                                      among
    other     things,          the following described property:
    All        that portion of              the North- East                quarter ( NEI/ 4)              of
    Section        10.,      T.    20.,     S.     R.     17    East,      which lies East of
    Four       Point Canal; Bounded on the West by Four Point
    Canal,     on the North by fractional section Three of T.
    20.,    S.  R.   17 East, on the East by Section 11. T. 20.,
    S.   R.   17 E.,   and on the South by the South -East quarter
    of    said     Section         10."
    The description above appears to be                                      limited to
    property located in the NE 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                             T20S- R17E,         and
    does not include any portion of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 of that
    same township and range.                         Therefore,              this       act,    to       the    extent    it
    relies on this property description,                                     cannot be          said to have been
    translative           of    title.           However,          this      act    of    sale       contained          the
    following additional language:
    It     is the intention of                    the vendor to sell and he does,
    by these presents sell and convey unto said Harry Bourg
    all that property which Vendor owns lying East of Four
    Point       Canal       and West        of Bayou Sale,                 regardless             of
    accuracy and detail of description...."
    The relatively small portion of the NW 1/ 4 of Section
    10,    T20S- R17E,          described above,                   is    located east               of    Four Point
    Canal     and       west    of    Bayou        Sale.          In    1934,      no    recorded          interest       in
    that relatively small portion of property was owned by Ashby W.
    Pettigrew.            On May 1,             1934,      at the time of the sale to Harry
    Bourg,        that    portion          of    the NW          1/ 4   of   Section          10,    as    well    as    the
    entire        remainder          of    the NW         1/ 4    of    Section         10,    was       owned one- half
    by the heirs of Volumnia Roberta Barrow Slatter Woods (                                                      Clara    K.
    Slatter          and Annis         Slatter),           and one- half by the heirs of Robert
    Ruffin        Barrow ( Irene            F.     Barrow,         Mrs.      Zoe Barrow Topping,                   Mrs.
    Harriette           Barrow        Cole,      and Mrs.           Jennie       Barrow Dawson).                  Due    to
    the lack of            a more specific description,                              and because Ashby W.
    24
    Pettigrew did not,                 in fact,       own any portion of the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section    10,        T20S- R17E,         on May 1,        1934,    this " catch- all"       provision
    in the act of sale did not render this act of sale translative of
    title,    or    a "    just    title"       for purposes           of   acquisitive
    prescription.
    The     act    of    sale    dated April        10,      1942,    from Ashby W.
    Pettigrew to Harry Bourg, purported to convey to Harry Bourg the
    following described property:
    All that portion of Section 10 which lies West of the
    East bank of Four -Point Canal."
    As pointed out              above,    most of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10
    in T20S- R17E lies west of the east bank of Four Point Canal.                                            For
    purposes       of acquisitive prescription,                        and considering the
    specificity of the property description, it is not necessary to
    determine what interest,                    if any,        Ashby W.      Pettigrew actually had
    in and to the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 on April 10,                                  1942.     This
    property description does appear to render the act translative of
    title,
    but only with regard to that portion of the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section    10,       T20S- R17E,
    located west of the east bank of Four
    Point    Canal.
    The description does not purport to transfer any
    part of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 located east of the eastern bank
    of Four Point Canal.                     As pointed out above,             a    relatively       small
    part of the NW 1/ 4                of    Section 10,       but a part particularly
    important to this case,                    lies east of the eastern bank of the
    canal.
    The court notes that the two- line property description
    quoted above does not indicate which Section 10 the description
    refers    to.     The township and range are not indicated.                                 Because       of
    the language from the act quoted below,                              however,     the     court    does
    not believe this deficiency is of any moment.
    The       April        10,    1942,
    act of sale contained the following
    important additional language:
    It is the intention of Ashby W.                           Pettigrew to herein
    sell,
    and it is the intention of said Harry Bourg to
    herein buy all of the property which said Ashby W.
    Pettigrew owns in Sections 10, 15, 22 and 27 of T. 
    20 S. R. 17
     E, whether lying on the West side of [ or] the
    East side of the aforesaid Four -Point Canal,                               and,    if    it
    should hereafter be found that said Ashby W.                                Pettigrew
    25
    owns any property in said Sections 10,                                       15,   22    and    27
    which has           not    been    included in the within sale, then
    and in that event                 the said Ashby W. Pettigrew obligates
    himself        to    sign and          execute        an       act   of   correction
    transferring the ownership of such property to the said
    Harry Bourg."
    On    April       10,    1942,    Ashby W.              Pettigrew did            own    an
    undivided one- half interest in and to the entirety of the NW 1/ 4
    of    Section       10,    T20S- R17E,         both on the              east     and west         sides of         the
    Four    Point       Canal,       having acquired the same by the compromise
    agreement by and between him and the four daughters of Robert
    Ruffin Barrow dated June 22,                       1935.              For    that    reason,          the   court
    finds that the act of sale dated April 10,                                        1942,    was        translative
    of    title,
    at least to the extent of Ashby W,                                   Pettigrew' s
    undivided one- half               interest        therein.              The      question remains             as    to
    whether the act was translative of title to the undivided portion
    of the property not owned by Mr.                             Pettigrew.
    The answer to the question appears to be in the
    affirmative.              As pointed out hereinabove,                            a just title           to an
    undivided interest in an immovable is a just title only as to the
    interest transferred. (                   La.     C. C.      art.       3484.)        When a co- owner of
    an immovable transfers the ownership of the entire immovable to a
    third    person,          the transferee acquires the undivided interest of
    the    transferor,          and in addition,                 he acquires a just title to the
    remaining parts.                 Thus,
    the transferee acquires the ownership of
    the entire immovable in ten years if he is in good faith and if
    his possession is sufficiently adverse to the interests of the
    remaining       co- owners. (           La.    C. C.     art. 3484,           comment (        b).)
    The    April       10,    1942,
    act of sale from Ashby W.                            Pettigrew
    to Harry Bourg,             does not purport to convey merely an undivided
    interest in and to any of the properties described therein.                                                     A
    fair reading of the act,                      which was           a    sale with all            legal
    warranties,
    does not suggest that Ashby W.                               Pettigrew           thought      he
    was selling only an undivided interest or that Harry Bourg
    thought he was buying less than the whole of the properties.
    By act of sale dated April 7,                                1955,    Harry Bourg conveyed
    to HBC:
    All that portion of Section 10 which lies West of the
    Rol
    East bank of            Four    Point        Canal."
    Being the same property purchased by Harry Bourg from
    Pettigrew under date of April                            10,    1942."
    Ashby W.
    Clearly,          this act of               sale conveyed the largest portion
    of    the NW 1/ 4         of Section 10,             T20S- R17E,        referred            to    above,       and
    owned by Harry Bourg,                  to    HBC.          However,     the act of               sale    in all      of
    its myriad of property descriptions contained therein, does not
    mention any other property located in Section 10,                                            specifically
    the    NW   1/ 4    thereof.           In order to find that the remaining portion
    of    the   NW     1/ 4   of    Section       10,        i. e.,    the relatively small portion,
    was conveyed to HBC by Harry Bourg on April 7,                                            1955,    and    that       the
    act,    therefore,             constitutes "             just     title,"        the     court    would have          to
    conclude         that     the phrase, ""[           b] eing the same property purchased by
    Harry Bourg from Ashby W.                         Pettigrew under date of April                          10,
    1942, 1"    in the        1955 act of sale,                   included the conveyance of                       the
    smaller portion of                the NW          1/ 4    of. Section 10           on     the    east    side of
    Four    Point       Canal,       purchased by Harry Bourg by way of the
    important          additional          language°             referred to above and included                          in
    the    April       10,    1942,    act       of    sale.
    The court        finds       that        the April         7,    1955,     act of sale by
    Harry Bourg to HBC conveyed valid title of Harry Bourg" s
    undivided one- half interest in and to all of the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section 10          on both sides of the east bank of Four Point Canal,
    and just         title     to the other undivided one- half                               interest.        The
    court is persuaded in this conclusion by the precise language
    used in       the     1955      act,    to    wit, ""[ bleing           the same property
    purchased,"           rather than language that                        could have been used,                    such
    as "
    being part of the same property purchased."                                          As    the
    particular successor of Harry Bourg in the 1955 act of sale,                                                     HBC
    is entitled to rely on the " just                                 title,"        in favor of Harry Bourg
    created by the act of sale to him dated April 10,                                               1942.
    For the foregoing reasons,                          the court           finds    that     HBC has
    established by a preponderance of the evidence the necessary
    prerequisites             of    just    title ( as            distinguished from good or
    merchantable              title)   and good faith to support a claim of
    acquisitive prescription often years with regard to the NW 1/ 4
    27
    of   Section    10,       T20S- R17E,     Terrebonne      Parish,    Louisiana.
    Possession
    It remains         for the court to address the possession
    requirement necessary for HBC to prevail on its argument that it
    is   the    owner,    by way of acquisitive prescription,                     of   the
    undivided interest in the property titled in the names of Gaidry
    and Schwing.           The bulk of the evidence offered at trial by HBC
    dealt       with this      issue.
    As    noted hereinabove,          possession,        for the    purpose    of
    acquisitive          prescription,        must begin with          corporeal possession,
    and    it    must be      continuous,      uninterrupted,          peaceable,       public,     and
    unequivocal.              The possessor must           intend to possess           as owner,
    that    is,    for himself and not with an intent to possess for
    someone       else    such    as   a    lessor   or   co- owner.
    It is against this legal background that the court has
    considered the evidence offered by HBC to support its claim that
    it acquired the ownership of the undivided interests of its co-
    owners in the property by possession of the same based on overt
    and unambiguous acts of possession evidencing its intent,                                 and    the
    intent of       its ancestor in title, Harry Bourg,                       to do    so.
    In an effort            to prove this     intent     to possess       the NW     1/ 4
    of    Section 10,         T208- R17E,      adversely to its co- owners,              Gaidry and
    Schwing,       HBC offered a variety of documentary evidence and
    testimony at trial on this issue.                       All   of   this    evidence,     which
    has been carefully analyzed by the court,                          falls    into six distinct
    categories,          to   wit:
    1)    The posting of signs;
    2)    Agricultural use and fencing;
    3)    Property taxes;
    4)    Servitude agreements             and other written public acts;
    5)    Hunting and fishing;             and,
    6)    Mineral exploration and activity,
    The Posting of Signs
    The documentary evidence offered by HBC to prove that
    HBC posted the land in question consists of HBC Exhibit Nos.                                    36,
    36A,    and    58.        These documents together with the testimony of
    Roger Webb,          Shannon         J.    Danos,    Wilson " Doc"          Gaidry,       Jr.,    Leonard
    J.   Chauvin,        Jr.,      John Mattingly,            Herdis      Neil,       Nolan Bergeron,                 and
    Ronnie Bergeron confirm that signs were posted as early as the
    late    1950' s,      after the act of sale to HBC by Harry Bourg.                                          The
    preponderance             of     the   evidence       suggests        the   signs    were       posted
    primarily on telephone poles and trees all along both the east
    and west       sides of           Four Point        Road in     the NW 1/ 4          of    Section          10,
    and north and south of that property.                                 At    the    time    of    trial,           some
    seventy years after HBC acquired its interest in the property,
    there were nine                signs      in the NW 1/ 4 of           Section 10 which read,
    Posted Harry Bourg Corp.                     7477 Grand Caillou Rd.                  Dulac,          LA.
    70353."
    The court does not believe that                             signs    lake    the ones
    described above were posted anywhere else on the approximately
    160    acres     of       the NW 1/ 4       of Section 10.             other       than the       Four       Point
    Canal     and the          adjacent        Four     Point   Road,      there       were    no    convenient
    methods of ingress to the property.                              it    is    reasonable          to conclude
    that the signs were intended to aid in the prevention of
    trespassing upon the land by passersby on the road.                                             The    signs
    were    visible           to   the     public.       This was confirmed by Roger Webb,                                 a
    witness        for the plaintiff,                 who visited the property as early as
    1986,     and Wilson Gaidry,                 Jr.,     a seventy- nine year old member of
    the Gaidry family, who has been familiar with the property since
    at     least    1955.          Both       confirmed      that   neither       of    them was          ever
    asked to leave the property by anyone,                                and    that    their       access           to
    the property was never denied or obstructed in any way by anyone.
    Testimony to the same effect was received from Leo Bickham,                                                  who
    hunted on the property from 1978 through at' least 2004 with the .
    permission           of    the    plaintiffs.
    Both       Mr.    Webb      and Mr.      Gaidry testified that they knew
    Gaidry and Schwing co -owned the property with HBC and neither of
    them understood the signage to indicate that HBC considered
    itself sole owner of the property.                             Mr.    Gaidry testified that he
    never thought HBC was possessing the property to the exclusion of
    29
    Nolan    Bergeron,          the seventy-
    the Gaidry and Schwing interests.
    four year old grandson of Harry Bourg,                                    testified that              he did not
    know anyone else co -owned the property with HBC.
    Mr.    Gaidry,           a   resident           of   Terrebonne          Parish,       and    a
    former president of Gaidry,                          testified that he was                     involved          in the
    management of the Gaidry and Schwing properties,                                               including the NW
    1/ 4   of     Section      10,     almost         all     of his         life.     He     testified that he
    has visited the property at issue at least twice a year since
    1955,       primarily to hunt and trap.                             It    is apparent           that Mr.          Gaidry
    generally accessed the property via the western side,                                                 by boat
    through the low- lying areas historically prevalent on the western
    side     of    the NW       1/ 4   of       Section       10    and other properties                   adjacent
    thereto.         There was              no evidence            received at             trial    to    suggest that
    anyone associated with Gaidry or Schwing utilized the relatively
    small        portion       of    the NW       1/ 4   of     Section         10    on    the    east    side       of
    Four Point Canal for any purpose at any relevant time.
    Agricultural Use and Fencing
    A great deal of the evidence offered at trial by HBC
    confirmed the              corporeal          possession and use of                      the NW 1/ 4         of
    Section 10 by and through HSC for agricultural purposes,
    including attendant fencing.                              The       court notes          that    the    evidence
    at trial offered by HBC confirms that no residences were
    established           on    the     land.         The     evidence          establishes          that    the home
    of Nora Bourg Breaux,                       the daughter of Harry Bourg,                         and her
    husband Hughes              Joseph Breaux,                was       located well          north of       the NW
    1/ 4    of    Section       10,     in      adjacent        Section         37    of    T20S- R17E.          The
    evidence        also       confirms          that    the mobile home                   occupied as       a
    residence by either Carl Bourg,                                Harry Bourg' s grandson,                  or       Carl
    J.     Bourg' s son,            Jason,       on   the     east       side    of    Four       Point    Canal,          was
    not     in the NW 1/ 4             of    Section 10,            but      in the adjacent              SW 1/ 4      of
    Section        10.
    The    court        is      convinced that suitable areas of the NW 1/ 4
    of Section 10 were used since 1942 by Harry Bourg and/ or HBC,
    either directly or through others on their behalf,                                               for the
    cultivation of sugar cane and the grazing of cattle at various
    W
    times.         The cultivation of sugar cane was primarily in the areas
    of higher elevation relatively unaffected by water and marshy
    land    conditions,             mainly along the east and west sides of Four
    Point    Road.          The cattle grazing operations were more extensive,.
    extending at times to the western and northern section line
    boundaries,           and necessarily included the need to install fencing
    on and beyond the property.
    The documentary evidence in support of the court' s
    findings        consist          of    HBC Exhibits             27,     28,   29,   30,     31,    32,    33,        34,
    35A,     37,    38,       39,    40,       41,    43,     46,   49,     50,   and   5B.      These
    documents,           along with the testimony of Wilson " Doc"                                    Gaidry,           Jr.,
    Leonard        J.    Chauvin,          Jr.,       John Mattingly,             Herdis      Neil,      Nolan
    Bergeron,           and    Ronnie          Bergeron,          support the following conclusions
    by the court.
    The eight aerial photographs spanning the years 1953-
    1996     made       part    of    Mr.       Mattingly' s report in this case are
    tremendously helpful to understanding the topographical
    development of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 during that forty- three
    year     period.           From       1953       to     1956,   cultivable          fields    developed over
    a   substantial            part       of    the       southern part           of   the NW    1/ 4,       and    this
    condition appears                 to have continued to a significant degree at
    least through 1987 on both sides of Four Point Canal.                                                 By 1996,
    there does not appear to be any evidence of cultivation,                                                      but    it
    does appear there were substantial areas of cleared pasture area
    suitable for the grazing of cattle on large expanses of the NW
    1/ 4   of      Section 10         through at              least       1987,    on both sides             of    Four
    Point       Canal,        and at least through 1996 on the eastern side of the
    canal.          These topographical                      findings       are consistent with the
    documentary evidence offered by HBC regarding use of the property
    for cultivation of sugar cane and the grazing of cattle.
    When Hughes               Joseph Breaux,              the son- in- law of Harry Bourg
    died in         1965,
    it was reported by way of his succession proceeding
    that he owned significant sugar cane farming equipment,                                                   standing
    sugar       cane      crops,      and the rights as lessee under a verbal
    agricultural lease from Harry Bourg and/ or HBC affecting lands in
    31
    Section      10   of    T20S- R17E.     It appears     that prior to his death,                 he
    farmed the NW 1/ 4           of    Section 10    on the west     side of      the    Four
    Point Road with the permission of Harry Bourg or/ and HBC,
    certainly since at least 1956.                   Based on the satellite imagery of
    the property in 1965,               it appears this farming by Mr.                Breaux
    continued at            least until    his death.      The   evidence       the    court
    received also            confirms    that prior to his       death,    Mr.    Breaux       and
    his    wife,      Nora Bourg Breaux,        used the      same   portions     of    the    NW    1/ 4
    of    Section      10    to graze    cattle.     Except    for the    time between          1968
    and    1978,      when it appears this property was leased to Hilton
    Dumesnil by HBC,            Mrs.    Breaux used the same property for cattle
    grazing until her death in 2000.                   The property was located just
    south of the Breaux homestead and it appears to have been used as
    an extension of the property on which they resided in the
    adjacent section 37               of T20S- R17E.    No one has       furnished       to    the
    court any publicly recorded documentary evidence confirming that
    Mr.    and   Mrs.
    Breaux possessed any part of the NW 1/ 4 of Section
    10 pursuant to any written agreement with HBC or Harry Bourg at
    any time,         except the judgment of February 20,                1991,    discussed
    hereinbelow,
    Based on the satellite imagery received by the court,                              it
    appears      that       sometime between 1981 and 1984,            someone        caused to be
    constructed along the southern half of the extreme western side
    of    the NW 1/ 4       of Section 10,      a drainage canal,         apparently for the
    purpose of containing an area known as the " Cenac Duck Pond,"
    located in the adjacent Section 9 of T20S- R17E.                        This       canal,
    along with fencing and another drainage canal,                        all    located
    largely outside of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                      served     to prevent
    cattle from escaping their complete enclosure.                         The only portion
    of fenceline in the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 which contributed to
    this    larger " pen"        was a barbed wire fenceline that meandered more
    or less from the northern boundary of the quarter section along
    the rear of a woodline located along Four Point Road,                              and then       a
    short distance along Four Point Road itself to the southern
    boundary of the quarter section.                   This fencing,       estimated by
    32
    Leonard          J.    Chauvin,        Jr.,    to have been ten to twenty- five years
    and
    old    in       1988,    obviously was intended to contain the cattle Mr.
    Mr.
    Mrs.    Breaux were running on the property prior to that time.
    Gaidry testified that he observed what he called " random fencing"
    on the west side of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 during his many
    visits. to the property and he observed the cattle grazing there.
    As a cattleman himself,                        he knew Mr.            and Mrs.      Breaux were in the
    cattle business.                    Both      Leonard J.         Chauvin,         Jr.,     and   John
    Mattingly testified that all fencing at issued in this case was
    designed to keep cattle inside the fence,                                         not to keep people
    outside          the     fence.
    On February 20,            1991,         a judgment was rendered by the
    32nd Judicial District Court as a result of litigation by and
    between HBC and Mrs.                    Breaux.           Apparently,             there    was    a
    disagreement              between Mrs.            Breaux         and HBC      as    to    the    northern           and
    southern boundaries of property subject to a "                                           surface      lease"
    dated January 1,                 1980,        between' the parties.                  The    judgment
    recognized the northern boundary of the lease along a drainage
    ditch in Section                 37,     north of          the NW      1/ 4   of    Section       10,      all      in
    T20S- R17E.              The judgment recognized the southern boundary of the
    lease along a fence line located entirely in the SW 1/ 4 of
    Section           10.        Importantly,          even though the                judgment       never mentions
    the NW         1/ 4    of    Section      10,     the map attached to the judgment along
    with the written description                              of    the   northern and          southern
    boundaries,              leave no doubt that the entirety of the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section          10    west    of     Four Point          Canal,      and    other       lands       of     HBC,    were
    subject to a January 1,                         1980 "    surface         lease"    from HBC           to    Mrs.
    Breaux.              This January 1,             1980, "       surface       lease"      appears          to be     a
    January 1,             1980,       cattle grazing lease from HBC to Mrs.                                  Breaux,
    with       a    term    of    ten years.            In    turn,       that January 1,            1980,
    document             appears       to be     a successor             to   an August       20,    1968,        lease
    of    similar          character.            Both    the       August      20,    1968,    and January 1,
    1980,          leases,       declared         that " this        lease       shall not be            recorded in
    the    Conveyance             or    other       public        records      of    the    Parish       of
    Terrebonne."                 The court was furnished copies of these two leases
    33
    and has reviewed the same in connection with the February 20,
    1991,   judgment.
    In    1968,      by recorded lease,             HBC granted Hilton Dumesnil
    an agricultural and cattle grazing lease over HBC properties in
    Terrebonne       Parish,      good for five years with an option to renew
    for an additional five years.                      The rental was declared to be one-
    sixth of all the sugar cane produced and harvested.                                    Based      on    a
    review   of      this    document,        and a color -coded map of the properties
    described therein maintained by HBC,                        the court has            concluded that
    HBC did include in that lease land in the southernmost part of
    the NW    1/ 4    of    Section     10,     T20S- R17E      on the   west      side    of    Four
    Point    Canal,        and all     the    land     in the NW 1/ 4        of   Section 10,         T20S-
    R17E,    located on          the   east     side    of    Four   Point    Canal.       The    lease
    agreement was contemporaneously recorded in the conveyance
    records    of     Terrebonne        Parish.         The    land appears        to    include part
    of the property that was subsequently leased to Nora Bourg Breaux
    by HBC in 1980,             discussed hereinabove,               and part of the property
    that was subsequently leased to Carl J. Bourg by HBC in 1980,
    discussed        hereinbelow.
    The lease of property in the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 by HBC
    to Nora Bourg Breaux was limited to land on the west side of Four
    Point    Canal.         The evidence received by the court at trial
    confirms that HBC was active in the leasing of the relatively
    small part        of    the NW     1/ 4   of   Section 10        on the       east   side    of    the
    canal,    as     well.
    The satellite imagery described above and reviewed by
    the court        shows      that most of         the NW 1/ 4      of Section          10   located on
    the east bank of Four Point Canal was under cultivation by 1953,
    even before that portion of the section property located on the
    western    side       of   the    canal.      According to Herdis Neil,                   age    71,    who
    currently uses the property for cattle grazing,                                one    can   still
    detect the pattern of cultivated rows running in an east -west
    direction even though no crops have been grown on the property
    for more than thirty- five years.                        it is highly probable that the
    property was cultivated for the purpose of growing sugar cane
    34
    inasmuch as the surrounding property was used for that purpose,
    the remnants              of    the brickworks   of an old sugar mill are located
    just north of the property in Section 37,                             T20S- R17E,         and   the
    property was leased for up to ten years to Hilton Dumesnil for
    the purpose of cattle grazing and sugar cane cultivation,
    By agreement dated January 1,                    1980,    HBC leased to Carl
    J.   Bourg,         Harry Bourg' s grandson,            property on the east sidelof
    Four Point Canal for cattle grazing for ten years.                                    Based      on    a
    subsequent           amendment       to this    lease agreement,             dated September 9,
    1987,
    it appears the original cattle grazing lease included all
    of   the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 located on the east                             side of Four
    Point    Canal.            The 1987 amendment expanded the lease to permit use
    of the property for agricultural purposes,                             hunting and trapping
    purposes,
    as well as for the purpose of cattle grazing.
    While the 1987 amendment to the original lease was
    contemporaneously recorded,                    recordation of          the    1980 original
    lease was expressly forbidden.                        The 1987    amendment          references
    Carl    J.    Bourg' s father, Albert Bourg,                Harry Bourg' s only son,                       and
    indicates that he was a previous lessee of the property described
    in   the amendment.
    HBC offered at trial              of    this matter,          another       contract        of
    lease to Carl              J.    Bourg,   dated September 11,           1988,       and    effective
    for ten years.                  This agreement appears to be similar to the 1980
    lease agreement as amended in 1987.                       However,       the    court has
    concluded,           based on its examination of the sketch attached to the
    document,           that it did not include the lease of any property in
    the NW       1/ 4    of    Section 10,      T20S- R17E.
    The evidence received by the court convinces the court
    that    Carl        J.
    Bourg was using the property on the east side of
    Four Point Canal and at issue in this case for the grazing of
    cattle,       at     least       from 1960.    Before     that    time,       his    father,      or
    someone on behalf of HBC such as Hilton Dumesnil,                                   or Harry Bourg,
    more probably than not used the property for the grazing of
    cattle       and/ or cultivation of sugar cane at least since 1953.
    According to Herdis Neil,                 Carl    J.    Bourg abandoned his
    35
    lease         of    the NW 1/ 4          of    Section       10,    on    the    east      side   of   Four    Point
    Canal         in 1999.           Shortly thereafter,                 by agreement dated April 1,
    1999,         and contemporaneously recorded in the conveyance office in
    Terrebonne               Parish,    HBC        leased    to    Mr.       Neil "     for cattle grazing
    purposes            only,"       lands which included the section property on the
    east      side       of    the    canal.         This lease was effective for up to six
    years.             By recorded agreement effective April 21,                                  2011,     as
    amended by a recorded act dated dune 28,                                        2017,      HBC leased the
    same property for the same purpose to Mr.                                          Neil,    again for up to
    six     years.
    The amendment reduced the number of acres leased due
    to the excavation of part of the land to remove the dirt that is
    at      issue in this case.
    Property Taxes
    The court has examined the limited information furnished
    by HBC regarding the assessment of property taxes by the
    Terrebonne Parish Tax Assessor, - principally from 1924 to 1962 as
    reflected by HBC Exhibit Nos.                            35B       and 42.          These exhibits           consist
    of a summary of assessments against various owners for various
    parcels of land during those years.
    From 1924 until              1927,       inclusive,          Ashland Planting &
    Manufacturing Co.,                  Inc.,
    was assessed for the ownership of 5000
    acres known as the Dulac Plantation in ward 4 of Terrebonne
    Parish.
    All of the property at issue in this case is located in
    Ward     4.         In    1928,    no property in Ward 4 was assessed in the name
    of that company,                  but the same property was assessed in the name
    of   A. W.         Pettigrew,       Inc.,
    beginning in 1928 and continuing through
    1931.          In    1932,    no property in Ward 4 was assessed in the name of
    A. W.    Pettigrew,              Inc.,
    but the same property was assessed in the
    name of Ashby W.                  Pettigrew,        or A. W.         Pettigrew,            beginning in 1932
    and continuing through 1934.                             In    1935,       A. W.     Pettigrew was
    assessed for all of Dulac Plantation " west of Four Point Canal,"
    while Harry Bourg was assessed for the first time only for the
    following described property " east                                 of    Four Point         Canal"    and
    located            in Section 10,              T20S- R17E:
    a)    The W 1/ 2 of          the SE 1/ 4;            and,
    36
    b}      The    NE   1/ 4.
    The       assessment           to A. W.      Pettigrew      in 1935       continued
    unchanged through                1942.        However,       beginning in 1936,               the
    assessment in the name of Harry Bourg grew to include additional
    properties         in T20S- R17E,             incorrectly identified as being
    However,        none
    exclusively on the east side of Four Point Canal.
    of the property in Section 10 included the NW 1/ 4 thereof.
    In    1943,       Harry Bourg' s assessment was the same,                             but
    curiously,           there was no longer any assessment for property of
    A. W.   Pettigrew,            then      or   thereafter.           In   1944,    Harry Bourg' s
    assessment           was    the     same.
    In    1945,        Harry Bourg' s assessment changed dramatically.
    The     new assessment              consisted of           two parts.           The   first part was
    identical          to the        1935     assessment,        simply the W 1/ 2 of the SE 1/ 4
    and     the   NE     1/ 4   of     Section      10,     T20S- R17E,       all    east   of    Four     Point
    Canal.        The     second part            was    a new assessment             which did not
    expressly include the specific tracts of land for which Harry
    Bourg had been assessed in the years 1936 through 1944.                                               Instead,
    the     second part           of    the      new assessment         was    revised to         read     as
    follows:
    The      unsold portion              of   Dulac    Plantation          west   of    Four
    Point       Canal       and Bayou Dulac            and East       of Bayou Grand
    Caillou in Township 19 and 20 South,                              Range 17 East,
    including parts of Sections 3,                           10,   15,     and   22,    T20S-
    R17E among other property.'
    This two part assessment in the name of Harry Bourg
    continued          in    identical           form through         1954.       Beginning in 1955 and
    until     1962,         when     the    records         furnished to       the    court      end,     this
    same two part assessment appears only in the name of Harry Bourg
    Corporation.
    The lack of any assessment in the name of Ashby W.
    Pettigrew beginning in 1943,                            coincides with his April                10,    1942,
    sale to Harry Bourg.                     There is no rational explanation as to why
    no one was assessed in 1944 for the additional property for which
    Harry Bourg and HBC were assessed beginning in 1945.
    The court has not been furnished any evidence that
    during those same years,                      i. e.,      1924   through       1962,       any property in
    37
    Ward 4 was assessed in the names of Gaidry or Schwing or their
    ancestors       in title.
    Based on the foregoing,                        and after comparing the
    descriptions          in    the   April       10,    1942,       purchase by Harry Bourg to
    the tax assessor' s description of property assessed to Harry
    Bourg and HBC,             the court believes the entire ownership interest
    in the land at issue in this case was assessed first to Harry
    Bourg beginning in 1945,                      and subsequently to HBC,                  and that they
    paid the property taxes due on the property through at least
    1960.       The court' s finding is supported by the records of the
    Terrebonne           Parish tax assessor offered as HBC Exhibit No.                                  56.
    The     court      is   also     convinced that               sometime    in 1960      or
    1961,    the Terrebonne Parish tax assessor realized that Harry
    Bourg Corporation was not record owner of a one hundred percent
    interest        in the NW 1/ 4           of    Section 10,            T20S- R17E.       HBC   Exhibit      No.
    56    reveals that          in 1961       the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff began
    collecting property taxes from the ancestors in title of Gaidry
    and Schwing for assessments of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                          T20S-
    R17E.        The     evidence      offered          to    the   court,       particularly HBC
    Exhibit       No.     57   and    Plaintiffs'             Exhibit      No.    6,    indicates      that
    since       1961,     both HBC and the Gaidry and Schwing interests have
    paid property taxes attributable to this property at various
    times,       and that       the    assessor has not been consistent                           in
    identifying the interest of each party to the assessments.
    For    some      unknown       reason,          for    the   tax year    2017,      the    tax
    assessor assessed Gaidry and Schwing for one hundred per cent of
    the    NW    1/ 4,    Section      10,    T20S- R17E.
    The court has not received any evidence to show that the
    tax     assessor,          while adjusting the assessments of Gaidry and
    Schwing,        beginning in 1961 and ending in 2017,                                ever    adjusted      the
    assessment           against      HBC to reflect                this    new assessment         against
    Gaidry and Schwing.                    The description of the property assessed to
    HBC remained unchanged in relevant part throughout these years.
    The court believes                it     is more probable than not                    that    the NW 1/ 4
    of    Section        10,    T20S- R17E,        was       subject to          dual   assessment      since
    38
    1961.
    Servitude Agreements and other Written Public Acts_
    In an effort to prove           its overt and unambiguous acts of
    possession of the property at issue,                      HBC     offered     numerous
    publicly recorded written acts allegedly evidencing its ownership
    and   possession,              all reflected by HBC Exhibit Nos.               19,   20,   21,    23,
    24,     25,    26,      and    52.
    The first such document is a copy of a boundary
    agreement by and between HBC and The Louisiana Land and
    Exploration Company,                   dated October    11,     1958.   The    court has
    determined that this document does not apply to any part of the
    NW    1/ 4    of    Section 10,          T20S- R17E.
    The second document is a copy of a right of way grant by
    HBC in favor of The Parish of Terrebonne,                          State of Louisiana,
    dated July 8,             1963.        The act grants a right- of- way for a public
    roadway approximately 700 feet in length in accordance with a map
    purported to be attached to the act.                          The map is not attached,
    and the court is unable to determine if this length of roadway is
    located within the NW                    1/ 4 of Section 10,      T20S- R17E.        HBC   also
    submitted a copy of a right of way deed by HBC in favor of The
    Police Jury of the Parish of Terrebonne,                          State   of    Louisiana,
    dated October             8,    1965.      This   document    refers    to a grant of        right-
    of- way for public road purposes.                      The property description
    therein is vague,                    and it is impossible for the court to determine
    if this servitude grant affects the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                  T20S-
    R17E.
    HBC also submitted to the court a copy of a drainage
    servitude deed by HBC in favor of The Terrebonne Parish Police
    Jury,         dated July 3,            1975.   The described servitude           is one hundred
    fifty feet wide along with a centerline along existing levees
    referred           to   in the        document.    The map attached to this document
    clearly shows the servitude grant substantially impacts the land
    in the NW 1/ 4            of     Section 10,      T20S- R17E.
    The next document offered by HBC is a copy of a grant of
    a mitigation servitude by HBC to Terrebonne Levee and
    39
    Conservation              District,       dated       September     27,    2012.      The    servitude
    is intended to afford the grantee levee district an opportunity
    The
    to create a umitigation and/ or marsh creation project."
    lands affected by the servitude are depicted on a map attached to
    the document,                 and they do not appear to include any part of the
    NW     1/ 4   of    Section       10,     T20S- R17E.
    The next document offered for the court' s consideration
    is a copy of an agreement and amended servitudes by and between
    HBC and Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government,                                         dated May 3,
    2013.         This document refers to the July 3,                           1975,     drainage
    servitude deed described above affecting the property at issue in
    this      case,          as well as an attached copy of an undated drainage
    servitude            deed recorded December 17,                    1973,    not     separately
    introduced as evidence                     in this case.            This    December        17,    1973,
    document           created a drainage servitude 130 feet wide in favor of
    the Terrebonne Parish Police Jury across lands of HEC,                                            including
    the      NW   1/ 4       of   Section     10,    T20S- R17E.        Strictly speaking,              the May
    3,     2013,       agreement does not directly affect the NW 1/ 4 of Section
    10,      T20.S- R17E,          but   it   does    confirm the        existence        of    the previous
    drainage            servitude        deed recorded December                17,     1973.
    BBC has also furnished to the court a copy of a
    right- of- way grant by the State of Louisiana to HBC dated October
    17,     2013,       for the purpose of constructing a " culverted bayou
    crossing"           through "       a portion of Four Point Bayou located in
    Section           10,    T17S- R20E. 11        The permanent right- of- way was declared
    The    designation of ' IT17S- R20E"               in the
    to he eighty feet wide.
    agreement           is an obvious error inasmuch as Four Point Bayou does
    not meander through                    11T17S- R20E, 11     but   rather through T20S- R17E.
    the reference to             114 Point Bayou Crossing"              on    the
    In any event,
    specifications                 attached to the document                  causes the court          to think
    the crossing pertains to property outside of the NW 1/ 4 of T20S-
    R17E.         This conclusion is based on the anticipated construction
    of a Four Point Bayou crossing mentioned in the agreement and
    amendedservitudesdocument dated May 3,                                    2013,    discussed
    hereinabove,                 in connection with the development of " Four Point
    40
    Harbor    Subdivision"              by HBC in Section 15,                 T20S- R17E,     south    of
    Section    10.         The court finds that this grant of right- of- way by
    the state actually pertains to a portion of Four Point Bayou (                                           or
    canal)    in Section           15    or    the   SE    1/ 4    of Section     10,   T20S- R17E.
    The court has also been furnished a copy of a grant of
    servitudes by and between HBC,                         Four     Point     Harbor,   L. L. C.,     and
    Terrebonne           Levee   and     Conservation             District,     dated May 4,         2016.        A
    review of this document and the map attached reveals that the
    agreement        pertains       to    Section         22,     T209- R17E,    and in no way
    affects the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 in that range and township.
    Finally,        the court was furnished a copy of the " Dirt
    Contract"        dated April          9,    2014,      by HBC,       as   seller,   and Low Land,
    as    buyer,     and a copy of the " Supplemental and Amended Dirt
    Contract"        between the same parties dated February 26,                               2015.
    The parties to this litigation have already agreed that these
    documents impact that portion of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                        T20S-
    R17E,    located on the east side of Four Point Canal.
    By way of HBC Exhibit No.                       44,   HBC furnished to the               court
    an extract from a Tobin map with reference to T20S- R17E,
    Terrebonne           Parish,    Louisiana,            depicting property " occupied by
    Harry Bourg."              The property is clearly identified as the NW 1/ 4
    of    Section        10.
    The map indicates that surrounding property on
    the    north,        east,
    and south sides thereof is owned by " Harry Bourg
    Corp."     There is no indication on the document of the date of
    preparation of             the map,        but it obviously was prepared after 1955
    when HBC acquired its lands from Harry Bourg.                                   The plaintiffs
    offered the same Tobin map as Plaintiffs'                                 Exhibit   No.    16.
    Neither Gaidry nor Schwing offered as evidence at trial
    any act purporting to constitute the creation of any surface
    right- of- way or servitude by them or their ancestors in title in
    the NW    1/ 4       of    Section    10,    T20S- R17E,         after      the April     10,    1942,
    purchase by Harry Bourg.                     They did offer, however,                   copies     of
    numerous acts after that date by which their various authors in
    title transferred ownership of their interests in the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section        10,    T20S- R17E,
    such that those interests are now owned by
    41
    Gaidry and Schwing.
    Hunting and Fishing
    In an effort to show its obvious and unambiguous use of
    the property at issue,               HRC also offered evidence of hunting and
    fishing activities on its behalf.                      Nolan Bergeron testified that
    he was the land manager for HBC for almost twenty years,                                 until
    1995.     Before        him,    those duties were the responsibility of
    Freddie Trahan from the time HBC acquired its lands from Harry
    Bourg.     HBC was vigilant about patrolling all of the property it
    owned,    particularly to control hunting and fishing.                               There     was   a
    system    of " passes"          used   at   one     time   to   grant visitors        access.
    Mr.    Bergeron testified that he did not patrol                         the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section 10 by boat and,                on   occasion,       he did see Wilson " Doc"
    Gaidry,        Jr.,    on HBC    lands,     but never on the NW 1/ 4 of               Section 10.
    The only documentary evidence offered by HBC regarding
    the sporting use of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                           T20S- R17E,         was   HBC
    Exhibit       No.     51.   It consists of sixty different deer hunting
    permits granted by HBG to various individuals between 2004 and
    2017.     Each permit generally granted permission to the grantee to
    hunt    on "    designated property of Harry Bourg Corporation,"                              without
    any further specification of which property was too be hunted.
    In a    few     instances,       a map is attached to the deer hunting permit
    and some of these maps appear to indicate that HBC was regulating
    deer hunting in the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 just south of the former
    homestead of Nora Bourg Breaux.
    To support their claims of sporting use of the NW 1/ 4 of
    Section 10 by or on behalf of Gaidry and Schwing or their
    ancestors        in    title,    the plaintiffs offered the testimony of Roger
    Webb,    Wilson " Doc"          Gaidry,      Jr.,    Shannon     J.   Danos,    and   Leo
    Bickham.
    According to Mr.            Webb,    age forty- seven,         who    owns    an
    interest in Gaidry,                he traditionally would access the property,
    either    alone        or   with   groups     of    people,     by crossing the levee on
    the west side near the Cenac Duck Pond in adjacent Section 9.                                        He
    would access the entry point by boat.                           At various      times    since
    42
    1986     or    1987,    and multiple   times       a year,    he would hunt or trap
    deer,     alligators,       rabbits,   and    nutria.
    He was not shy about
    shooting his shotgun shells and making his presence known.                                     in
    all the years he was present on the property,                      no one     indicated to
    him that he had no right to be there or otherwise obstructed his
    activities.
    Mr.    Danos,   a forty- nine year old commercial fisherman,
    who sells bait and crabs and lives near the property in question,
    testified he has fished minnows and crawfish on the property with
    permission of Gaidry,             always west of        Four Point      Canal.        This
    activity appears to have occurred within less than ten years
    before trial.            The court received as evidence,             copies      of      four
    one- year leases for the calendar years 2011- 2014 by which Mr.
    Danos leased from Gaidry, numerous properties in the Dulac area,
    for the purposes of " trapping,               hunting,       fishing,    campsite,        and
    other recreational and commercial activities."                          The leases always
    included the property described as the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,
    T20S- R17E.
    Mr.    Bickham,
    affiliated with Gaidry,          first visited the
    property in question in 1977 after his father died.                           In      1978,     he
    began hunting on the property regularly until about 2004 or 2005.
    Like     Mr.    Webb    and Mr.   Gaidry,   he would access the property on its
    western        side,
    and no one interfered with his use of the property.
    Mr.
    Gaidry testified that he has been familiar with the
    NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 since 1954 when, he first visited the
    property as a fifteen year old boy.                   He estimated that he has
    been on the property at least twice each year since, primarily to
    hunt and/ or trap ducks,            nutria,    minks,    otters,    and    alligators.
    Like     Mr.   Webb,
    no one ever indicated to him that he had no right
    to be there or otherwise obstructed his                      activities.     And like Mr.
    Webb,
    he would access the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 from the west.
    Mr.     Gaidry identified Plaintiffs'            Exhibit No.        10,    a    ten
    year hunting lease from Gaidry to Andrew Sheppard,                         dated October
    1,     1984,
    affecting property which included the NW 1/ 4 of Section
    10,-    T20S- R17E.      He also identified Plaintiffs,             Exhibit No.           8,    a
    43
    water fowl hunting lease from Gaidry to Andrew Sheppard,                                        dated
    September 10,               1995,   which included the property identified as the
    NW     1/ 4    of    Section    10,    T20S- R17E.              Mr.   Gaidry also identified
    Plaintiffs'               Exhibit   No.     9,     a trapping and hunting lease from
    Gaidry to Andrew Sheppard,                         dated September 10,             1995,    which    also
    included the same property.
    Mr.
    Gaidry confirmed that by producing tax receipts for
    the NW 1/ 4           of    Section 10,          T20S- R17E,          on behalf of Gaidry,          he
    enabled his brother- in- law,                       Dane Ledet,          to obtain Louisiana
    Wildlife and Fisheries permits to collect alligator eggs from the
    property beginning in 1996 through 2018.                                  During those same
    years,
    he was able to obtain alligator licenses for himself based
    on Gaidry' s ownership of the same property.                                  The documents
    evidencing these permits and licenses were received by the court
    as     Plaintiffs'           Exhibit      No.      7.
    Mr.
    Gaidry testified that he was the one who discovered,
    during a trip to the Terrebonne Parish Tax Assessor' s office in
    2016,
    that a dirt pit had been created on the east bank of Four
    Point Canal in the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 on property he knew
    belonged in part to Gaidry and Schwing.                                  It was that discovery
    that led to the filing of suit by Gaidry and Schwing against the
    defendants on May 23,                  2017.            He confirmed that he never thought
    HBC,     despite all its acts of possession, was possessing the
    property adversely to,                    or to the exclusion of,              Gaidry and
    Schwing.
    Mineral Exploration and Activity
    HBC       Exhibit     No.
    43 consists of an envelope mailed from
    Bellaire,           Texas,     on   June     27,        1961,   by Electronic Explorations,
    Inc.,
    address to its company representative,                             Mr.    J. V.
    Looney,      in
    Thibodaux,            Louisiana.          With the envelope is a handwritten note
    signed by Mr.              Looney referring to a check,                    apparently enclosed
    with     the    note,       for damages "
    for shooting land of Harry Bourg in
    following sections— north half Section 10...."                                      HBC apparently
    retrieved this item of evidence from the records of HBC and
    offered to show its possession of the land at or about that time.
    44
    the    court did
    Other than this one item of documentary evidence,
    not received from HBC any evidence of mineral leasing or
    T20S- R17E,
    development with regard to the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,
    April       10,    1942.
    after the property was acquired by Harry Bourg on
    On the other hand,                the court did receive evidence from
    gas,         and
    the plaintiffs in this case that various oil,
    mineral leases were granted with regard to varying interests
    in and to the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                               T20S- R17E,            by the Gaidry
    and Schwing authors in title,                          between 1955               and 1977,           all    of
    which were            contemporaneously recorded,                       to      wit:
    1)     From     T.     Smith Hickman,              et   al,       to   S.    Gordon Reese,
    dated December                 17,    1955;
    2)     From Wilson J.                Gaidry,       et   al,       to   S.    Gordon         Reese,
    dated         December         17,    1955;
    3)     From     E. B.        Schwing,    et       al,   to    C. T.      Carden,           dated may
    13,     1971;
    4)     From     Wilson J.            Gaidry,       Jr.,      et    al,      to     C. T.    Carden,
    dated May 7,                 1971;
    5)     From     E. B.        Schwing,    et       al,   to    Wolff          Petroleum           Co.,
    Inc.,         effective         December 4,          1974;
    6)    From Lillie Lea McKnight Gaidry,                                et     al,     to    Wolff
    Petroleum             Co.,     Inc.,    effective November                     25,     1974;
    7)    From     E. B.        Schwing,        et   al,     to Pennzoil Producing
    Inc.,         effective May 6,               1977;          and,
    Company,
    8) From Lillie Lea McKnight Gaidry, et al, to Pennzoil
    Producing Company, Inc., effective May 10, 1977.
    Based on all the evidence received by the court in this
    case regarding possession of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                                   T20S- R17E,
    by Harry Bourg and/ or HBC,                      the court is convinced that at                                  least
    since April           10,      1942,        Harry Bourg and his successor by particular
    title,        HEC,    have had corporeal possession of the entirety of the
    property.            There      is no question that the possession has been
    continuous,           peaceable,             public,      and     unequivocal.                Louisiana           Civil
    Code   article 3476                 declares,        however,         that       for       the purpose           of
    acquisitive           prescription,             the possession must                        be "    continuous,
    uninterrupted,               peaceable,         public,         and    unequivocal."
    The interruption of corporeal possession must be by acts
    of   corporeal          possession,            not    acts      of    civil         possession,            and    must
    be more than mere                   disturbances.
    45
    does not run in favor of a precarious possessor,                                             i. e.,        one    who
    possesses without any intent to own another' s interest,                                                     such      as       a
    co- owner,            or his universal             successor,          regardless of how long the
    possession             continues.           Under    our    law,       a   precarious             possessor,
    including a co- owner,                  is presumed to possess not for himself but
    for and on behalf of his co- owners,                               It is of no moment that                             the
    precarious possessor actually intends to possess                                             for himself
    alone.
    He is presumed to possess for and on behalf of his co-
    owners,
    even if he actually intends to possess for himself.                                                   As
    pointed out by comment (                     b)    of Louisiana Civil Code article 3438,
    this is a rebuttable presumption.                                A co- owner or his universal
    successor may commence to possess for himself,                                         and• thus begin the
    running of acquisitive prescription despite the presumption
    against him,                when he demonstrates " by overt and unambiguous acts
    sufficient to give notice to his co- owner"                                     that he intends to
    possess the property for himself alone.
    These basic Provisions of Louisiana property law have
    been consistently recognized by our courts.                                          Lee     v.    Jones,         
    69 So. 2d 26
     (    La.    11/ 09/ 53);     Givens       v.    Givens.,       
    273 So. 2d 863
     (              La.
    App.     2     Cir.     2/ 06/ 73),     writ denied,             
    275 So. 2d 868
     (    La.      4/ 19/ 73);
    Towles         v.     Heirs of Morrison,             
    428 So. 2d 1029
     ( La.                App.      1   Cir.
    2/ 22/ 83);           Andras    v.    Thibodeaux,          
    157 So. 3d 767
     (    La.        App.     1     Cir.
    10/ 30/ 14),           writ    denied,       
    204 So. 3d 179
     (         La.     10/ 30/ 15);           ELbarb v.
    The Unopened Succession of Sepulvado,                                  241    5o. 3d       1103 (      La.     App.         3
    Cir-     3/    14/ 18),       writ    denied,      
    244 So. 3d 437
     ( La.                6/ 01/ 18).
    Under Louisiana Civil Code article 3478,                                 the acquisition
    and recordation of a title from a person other than a co- owner
    may mark the commencement of prescription."                                           Likewise,               the
    particular             successor of a precarious possessor,                                such       as   a     co-
    owner,
    who takes possession under an act translative of ownership
    possesses             for himself,          and prescription runs in his favor from
    the commencement of his possession, (                              La.       C. C.    art.        3479.)          These
    two articles of the Louisiana Civil Code have been the subject of
    much     litigation in Louisiana.                      Succession of                 Seals,,       
    150 So. 2d 13
    La.   2/ 18/ 63);            Givens,       supra;   Towles,           supra;        Franks
    we
    Petroleum,          Inc.    v.
    Babineaux,          
    446 So. 2d 862
     (       La.    App.       2    Cir.
    2/ 21/ 84);     Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District v.                                      Erwin
    Heirs,     Inc.,      
    673 So. 2d 1351
     (       La.    App.   3     Cir.   05/ 08/ 96),           writ
    denied,       
    681 So. 2d 371
     ( La.          10/ 25/ 96);    Tilley v.          Unopened
    Succession of Howard,                 97.
    6 So. 2d 851
     ( La.     App.     2   Cir.    2/ 20/ 08),
    writ denied,          
    983 So. 2d 922
     (    La.    6/ 06/ 08);       Ebarb,    supra.
    One case relied upon by HBC in the instant litigation is
    the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Succession of Seals.
    The widow and daughter of the deceased,                             Stokes Seals,
    prevailed on a claim of thirty years acquisitive prescription
    against       the co- heirs,
    and thus co- owners of property,                           with     Mr.
    Seals.        Mr.
    Seals had acquired the property in question from his
    brother' s widow by written act of sale                            in 1913.       His brother,               who
    had no children,
    had purchased the property while single.                                   As    a
    result,
    the widow from whom he purchased the property acquired no
    ownership rights to the property as a result of her husband' s
    death.     However,
    as one sibling of the deceased,                       Stokes Seals
    owned the property as co -heir with his other brothers and
    sisters.
    After the purported sale from his dead brother' s widow,
    Mr.
    Seals took corporeal possession of the property and
    exercised certain acts of possession,                          ownership and management."
    The court found Mr.
    Seals to have been a precarious possessor of
    the property whose possession was sufficiently adverse to his co-
    owners to justify the accrual of acquisitive prescription.
    The concurring opinion of Justice McCaleb in the
    Succession of Seals opinion is instructive:
    A distinction should be recognized,                            I   think,    between a
    case like this,
    in which a co- owner pleading 30 - year
    acquisitive prescription takes initial possession under
    a deed translative of the property, albeit invalid, and
    a case in which a co- owner enters possession of the
    whole without a paper title and without clearly
    indicating to the other co- owners that he intends his
    possession to be hostile to their interests.                                  In    the
    first instance,
    it strikes me that the very fact that
    he acquires a title for valuable consideration,                                    as       in
    this     case,
    is sufficient to rebut any legal presumption
    that he is possessing for his co- heirs or co- owners,
    which normally obtains in cases in which the co- owner
    simply takes possession of the land.                               Accordingly,          in
    this     case,
    the fact that Stokes Seals entered the
    property in 1913 under a title and possessed as owner
    for over 30 years is sufficient, in my opinion,                                    to
    warrant maintenance of the plea of 30 - year acquisitive
    47
    prescription and this despite the   fact, as indicated by
    the   evidence, that he may have permitted some of his
    co- heirs to live thereon by sufferance.
    It    should be noted that              in the Seals case,             the    initial
    possessor,          stokes     Seals,      was a co- owner of        the property at                the
    time of       the    act     translative of          title between him and his
    brother' s widow.              The decision of the Supreme Court upholding his
    claim of ownership was clearly based on thirty years acquisitive
    prescription.              There was no express holding that the 1913 deed
    translative of title                  served as      notice to his      co- owners           that he
    intended to possess the property at issue for himself.                                        But    the
    concurring opinion of Justice McCaleb declares that it did.                                           In
    effect,
    Justice Mccaleb' s opinion indirectly declares that the
    particular successor                  to a precarious possessor under Louisiana
    Civil    Code article 3479                 includes a co- owner,        i. e.,        one    who
    already owns an undivided interest in the property.                                     This       appears
    to conflict with the second sentence of Louisiana Civil Code
    article 3478 which states: " The acquisition and recordation of a
    title from a person other than a co- owner thus may mark the
    commencement          of     prescription.,' ( Emphasis           added.)
    It is in light of these Civil Code articles and the
    relevant jurisprudence that the court has analyzed the juridical
    acts upon which HBC relies to show that its ancestors in title
    possessed       the NW        1/ 4    of   Section    10,    T20S- R17E,     for themselves
    alone and not             on behalf of their co- owners.                All      of    the    acts
    between May 14,              1927 (    sheriff' s     sale    to Madison L.           Funderburk),
    and May 1,          1934 (    purchase by Harry Bourg),              inclusive,             were    acts
    translative          of    title,      even though none of these acts transferred
    actual    record          title,       This is so because until June 22,                      1935,
    record title to the entirety of the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                                         T20S-
    R17E was vested in the successors of Robert R.                               Barrow         on the    one
    hand,    and    in the successors of Mrs.                    Volumnia   R.    Barrow Slatter               on
    the   other.         For reasons which will be explained below,                              the    court
    does not deem these transactions to be of any importance in this
    case.
    It is the act of sale dated April 10,                         1942,      from Ashby
    48
    W.   Pettigrew to Harry Bourg that the court considers critically
    important.          This act was translative of                    title.       The description
    therein was sufficient to convey ownership of the property at
    issue in this case if it had been executed by the proper owners.
    At the time this act was executed by Ashby W,                                 Pettigrew,     any
    possession he had of the subject property was precarious inasmuch
    as he was a co- owner of the property with the ancestors of Gaidry
    and Schwing.           importantly,             with regard to Harry Bourg,                however,
    the    exact   language           of   Louisiana        Civil     Code    article   3479     provides
    as    follows:
    A particular          successor of              a precarious       possessor who
    takes possession under an act translative of ownership
    possesses       for himself,             and prescription runs              in his
    favor from the commencement                       of his possession.
    In    this    case,       Harry Bourg was the particular successor
    of Ashby W.          Pettigrew,          a precarious possessor of the property.
    Harry Bourg was not a co- owner of the property at the time the
    April    10,    1942,       act    was    executed.         As    such,    under    Louisiana      Civil
    Code    article       3479,       upon    execution        of    the   act,   he possessed      the
    property at issue for himself,                          and prescription began running in
    his    favor "      from the commencement of his possession."                           The    law    is
    clear that one who acquires property from a co- owner precarious
    possessor is presumed to possess the property for himself and
    adverse to his co- owners once he takes corporeal possession.
    Givens,    supra;       Towles,          sUp;       Franks,       supra;      Lake Charles Harbor
    and    Terminal       District,          suipra;    Tilley,       supra.
    The following language from the Louisiana Second Circuit
    Court of Appeal             in the Givens case              is illustrative:
    The well- settled jurisprudential general rule is that
    an owner in indivision cannot acquire by prescription
    the rights of his co- owners in the property held in
    common.
    Possession by one co- owner is generally
    considered as being exercised on behalf of all co-
    owners.
    It is equally well- settled that an exception to the
    foregoing general rule is recognized in those instances
    wherein the adversely possessing co- owner gives notice
    to the other co- owners that he intends to possess
    contrary to the common interest.                           Under such
    circumstances one owner in common may prescribe against
    a party owning in indivision with him provided such
    possession be clearly hostile and notice be given
    49
    thereof.
    In determining whether a particular case falls within
    the exception rather than the general rule it has been
    held that mere occupancy,                     use,    payment      of    taxes        and
    similar acts of possession will not suffice to
    constitute notice of adverse possession to an owner in
    common.
    The court went on to say,                     citing Succession of Seals:
    However,          a solid line of            cases has developed the rule
    that    where       a    co- owner goes           into and continues
    possession under a recorded instrument apparently
    conveying title ( even though the purported conveyance
    be    invalid),          the recorded instrument               together with the
    acts    of    possession          constitute         notice    to       other    cc - owners
    and the possession is                  then regarded as             hostile         to the
    claims       of    the    other    co- owners,         rebutting         any
    presumption that possession is for the benefit                                       of all
    co- owners.
    Likewise,          in Towles the Louisiana First Circuit Court of
    Appeal had this to say:
    The possession by a co- owner inures to the benefit of
    the    other       co- owners,         as owners       in indivision cannot
    acquire title by prescription against one another,                                             in
    the absence of clearly hostile possession by the
    possessing          co- owner,      which         gives    clear    notice          to    the
    other co- owners of his intent to possess exclusively
    and adversely....            Where one co- owner goes                    into       and
    continues possession by reason of a deed translative or
    a partition declarative of title,                          the   co- owners          possession
    is regarded as hostile to any claim of his co- owner,
    rebutting the presumption of precarious possession.
    The    recordation of             a deed translative               of    title       is    the
    important factor in giving notice of hostile and
    adverse       possession          to    cc - owners ....     The notice given by
    the    recorded          titles    changes         the nature of          future
    possessor acts from precarious possession to adverse
    possession.  The acts                   of   corporeal possession must
    follow that notice.
    By application of Louisiana Civil Code article 3479,
    without regard to the decision in Succession of                                     Seals,          the    court
    finds that Harry Bourg,                 the particular successor of Ashby W.
    Pettigrew,      a   precarious          possessor,          gave   clear       notice          to    the    other
    co- owners of the property his intent to possess exclusively and
    adversely when he executed the act of April 10,                                     1942,       and
    recorded     the    same.        However,          this notice alone            is not          sufficient
    to   sustain a      claim of       acquisitive             prescription.             It    must be
    followed by actual acts of corporeal possession.
    As described hereinabove,                      the record         is    replete with
    50
    evidence of actual corporeal possession of the property at issue
    by Harry Bourg and/ or HBC through overt and unambiguous acts,                                           at
    least from April          10,   1942,    through the date of                     trial,    a   period     of
    time in excess of seventy- five years.                            As    explained hereinabove,
    the    court believes       the April        10,        1942,     act    constituted just              title
    to the property and that Harry Bourg acquired the same in good
    faith.
    Because possession is transferable by particular title,
    Harry Bourg' s possession can be claimed by HBC for its own
    benefit.
    HBC acquired Harry Bourg' s real rights in and to the
    property from him and is entitled to " tack"                                 this possession to
    its own from purposes of calculating the time necessary for
    acquisitive       prescription. (           La.        C. C.   art.     3441.)        This "   tacking
    of    possession"
    is permitted as long as there has been no
    interruption of possession,                 that        is,    as long as the possessor
    does not abandon his possession and as long as the possessor is
    not    evicted. (   La.    C. C.    arts.    3442          3433        and   3434).       If   one
    proves that he had possession at different times,                                     he is presumed
    to have possessed during the intermediate periods. (                                    La.    C. C.   art.
    3443).    Therefore,
    in the absence of some other legal impediment,
    the court is compelled to find that HBC is entitled to judgment
    in its favor declaring it to be the owner of the property at
    issue based on acquisitive prescription of both ten and thirty
    years.
    As stated hereinabove,              the court does not deem it
    necessary to discuss the transactions between -1927 and 1942 cited
    above that may have served as the basis for the commencement of
    acquisitive prescription that might be tacked on to the
    possession by Harry Bourg and/ or HBC.                          The court deems these
    transactions irrelevant inasmuch as the court has not received
    any credible evidence of any actual corporeal possession of the
    NW 1/ 4   of    Section 10,        T20S- R17E,
    by any of the parties to those
    transactions.
    In the absence of actual possession,                              there     can be
    no tacking.
    Bars to Accrual of Acquisitive Prescription
    The court has considered the evidence in this case with
    51
    a view toward determining whether there might be some other legal
    impediment to the running of acquisitive prescription in favor of
    HBC,   such that it would defeat its claims against Gaidry and
    Schwing.
    once     possession begins,                the    intent to retain that
    possession     is    presumed "
    unless there is clear proof of contrary
    intention." (       La.    C. C.    art.    3432.)       The presumption          is    rebuttable.
    Possession may be lost if " the possessor manifests his intention
    to abandon it or when he is evicted by another by force or
    usurpation." (       La.    C. C.    art.    3433.)          If possession is          lost,    and
    not timely recovered,               acquisitive prescription is deemed
    interrupted and commences to run anew from the last day of
    interruption. (           La.   C. C.    arts.    3465       and 3466.)
    None of the evidence in this case supports any assertion
    that Harry Bourg or HBC ever manifested any intention to abandon
    their possession of the property at issue or that they were ever
    evicted from the property by force or usurpation.                                 In    fact,    the
    evidence is quite to the contrary.                           They consistently corporeally
    possessed the property by acts which included,                              among other
    things,    the posting of signage,                    the raising of sugar cane,                and
    the grazing of cattle.                  There is no evidence to suggest they were
    restricted or inhibited in these activities in any way by anyone,
    The evidence at trial confirmed that there was never any sharing
    of revenue derived from the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10,                               T20S- R17E,       or
    any demand for such sharing by HBC or Harry Bourg with Gaidry or
    Schwing,   and,      likewise,
    by Gaidry or Schwing with HBC or Harry
    Bourg until the events which led to the filing of the petition in
    this   case.
    Under Louisiana Civil Code article 3435,                              possession        that
    is " violent,       clandestine,           discontinuous,         or     equivocal"       has no
    effect.
    Possession is violent when it is acquired or maintained
    by violent acts.            Possession is clandestine when it is not open
    or   public,
    discontinuous when it is not exercised at regular
    intervals,
    and equivocal when there is ambiguity as to the intent
    of the possessor to own the thing. ( La.                         C. C.    art.   3436.)        Again,
    52
    the court has no evidence upon which it could reasonably find
    that any of these. vices of possession are applicable to this
    case.
    Acquisitive prescription is interrupted if suit is filed
    challenging the prescription,                 or if the right of the owner is
    acknowledged by the possessor,                 or if possession is lost. (           1&.
    C. C.-   arts.    3462,     3464   and     3465.)    As discussed above,         the court
    does not believe Harry Bourg or HBC ever lost Possession.                           And
    there is no evidence that they ever affirmatively acknowledged
    any right of Gaidry and/ or Schwing to the property they
    Possessed.
    The only suit filed raising the issue Of Possession
    or acquisitive prescription is the instant suit filed May 23,
    2017,
    long after the accrual of prescription in this case.
    For all of the foregoing reasons, the court finds that
    HBC is the owner of the NW 1/ 4                of Section 10,      T20S- R17E,
    Terrebonne Parish,            Louisiana,
    having acquired ownership to a one-
    half interest in the same by way of the act of sale from Ashby W.
    Pettigrew an April 10,             1942,
    and having acquired all other
    outstanding interests thereto by acquisitive prescription based
    on Possession by just title in good faith for ten years as of
    April     11,    1952,
    or alternatively,         by possession for thirty years
    as of April        11,     1972,
    As owner of the property,          it could cause
    the excavation and sale of dirt therefrom pursuant to its
    contract with Low Land Construction Company, Inc., free of any
    claim by Or obligation to the plaintiffs in this case.
    Because the court finds that Harry Bourg and HBC
    possessed the property at issue pursuant to an act translative of
    title,
    HBC is deemed to have Possessed the entirety of the NW 1/ 4
    of Section 10 referred to in the act, regardless of the actual
    area possessed by them on the ground.                    However,    it appears their
    Possession actually extended to the full limits of the property
    as described.
    The property at issue is bordered on the north,
    south,
    and east by other property of HBC acquired from Harry
    Bourg,
    and the evidence supports the finding that the Possessive
    activities which occurred in the NW 1/ 4 of Section 10 spilled
    53
    over onto these other properties.               On the west,        fencing beyond
    the section line and a ditch and/ or levee along the section line
    marked the limits of possession,             which included at least the land
    of    the NW 1/ 4 of Section     10.
    Judgment has been entered in accordance with these
    reasons    for judgment.
    REASONS GIVEN in Chambers at Houma,                Louisiana,          on   this
    IL day of July, 2019.
    Please     serve:
    1.     The plaintiffs,    C. S.   Gaidry,     Inc.,
    LLC,                                                    and Schwing Management,
    through their attorney of record Damon J.                 Baldone,          162 New
    Orleans Boulevard,       Houma,    Louisiana          70364.
    2.     The defendant,    Harry Bourg Corporation,
    of    record, James M. Funderburk,           101 Wilson Avenue,
    through its attorney
    3017,                                                                    P.    O.    Box
    Houma, Louisiana  70361.
    3.     The defendant,
    Low Land
    its attorney of record,     Construction Company,
    Rufus C. Harris, III,
    Inc,,        through
    Suite 2710,     New Orleans,                                    650 Poydras Street,
    Louisiana      70130,
    Deputy Clerk of Court
    Parish of Terrebonne, LA
    54
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2019CA1274

Filed Date: 12/1/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024