-
Assuming for the sake of argument that a mineral interest is a servitude (the assumption being for that purpose only because I doubt seriously the correctness and soundness of our jurisprudence under which a mineral interest is held to be a servitude), I am of the opinion that the ten year non-user prescription has not been suspended as to the rights contested herein. The suspension is claimed under the provisions of Civil Code, Article 802, reading: "If among the coproprietors there be one against whom prescription can not run, as for instance a minor, he shall preserve the right of all the others." Among the coproprietors or co-owners of the forty-acre tract involved in this controversy, admittedly there are no minors or other incapacitated persons.
The cases of Sample v. Whitaker,
172 La. 722 ,135 So. 38 ; Ohio Oil Company v. Cox,196 La. 193 ,198 So. 902 ; State v. Fontenot,192 La. 95 ,187 So. 66 ; Standard Oil Company of Louisiana v. Futral,204 La. 215 ,15 So.2d 65 ; and Hodges v. Norton,200 La. 614 ,8 So.2d 618 , cited in support of the majority holding, are not directly applicable here. In the first four cited cases the incapacitated persons owned fractional *Page 287 interests throughout the tracts of land involved. The case of Hodges v. Norton is distinguishable in that it in no manner concerned Civil Code Article802 ; it presented only a question relative to the interruption of prescription by the exercise of the purported servitude.For these reasons I respectfully dissent.
Document Info
Docket Number: No. 37457.
Citation Numbers: 34 So. 2d 777, 213 La. 276
Judges: McCALEB, Justice.
Filed Date: 2/19/1945
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023