June, 1854. EASTERN DIST. Transactions have, between the parties, the authority of the thing adjudged; and where the parties compromise generally on all differences, the titles which are unknown and afterwards discovered, are not cause for rescinding the transaction, unless they have been concealed purposely by one of the parties. GROUNX ET ALS. f. p. c. ABAT'S EX'S. And where the renunciation of all claims and demands, in an act of compromise or transaction, is full and explicit, and no mention is made of a latent title to certain property included in the transaction, but no evidence showing that the title was concealed on purpose by the party, the transaction will not be rescinded. Judgments rendered by courts of competent jurisdiction, against minors duly and legally represented, so long as they are not reversed or declared to be null, have the same force and validity as if the parties were of full age. In an appeal where security is given merely and expressly for costs, the execution of the judgment below is not suspended thereby it is not a suspensive, but merely a devolutive appeal. An injunction bond given at the inception of the suit, cannot be cumulated with the appeal bond given in the same suit on appeal. The present suit commenced by injunction. The record shows, that on the 7th January, 1833, the executors of Antoine Abat obtained an order of seizure and sale against the present plaintiffs, who are the acknowledged natural children and heirs of Jean Grounx, deceased, for the sale of a house and lot of ground, on the corner of Rampart-street and the Bayou road, in virtue of a certain deed of compromise or transaction, entered into the 3d October, 1832, between the said heirs, represented by their tutor and co-heir, Jean Baptiste Grounx, f. m. c., and the executors of Antoine Abat; which said house and lot of ground was confirmed to the heirs of Grounx for the price of four thousand nine hundred dollars, and mortgage retained, with the express provision that if the price was not paid on the 31st of December following, the property should be seized and sold. On the 17th day of January, 1833, the present plaintiffs, by their under-tutor, J. Monrose, f. m. c., filed their petition and opposition to the order of seizure and sale, in which they allege that since the execution of the transaction or compro- EASTERN DIST. June, 1834. mise of the 3d October, 1832, they have learned that the house and lot of ground in contest was originally their pro- GROUNX ET ALS. f. p. c. perty, and belonged to them at that time, in virtue of an act of sale passed the 21st January, 1818, by their natural father, ABAT'S EX'S. in which he conveyed said property to their natural mother, and in trust for their use and benefit, in consideration of the sum and for the price of five thousand dollars. They further allege that, being ignorant of said sale and title to said property, their tutor and representative in said transaction was induced to accede thereto through error, and bind them for the price of four thousand nine hundred dollars as a new purchase of said property. They specially charge that this title was withheld, and not set forth and made known by the executors of Abat, who had charge of their natural father and mother's business at the time of signing the said transaction; and that the same was executed on the part of these plaintiffs through error, on the one hand, and obtained by unlawful means on the other. 1. They pray that they may be declared to be the true and lawful owners of the property in contest, in virtue of the act of sale dated the 21st January, 1818. 2. That the said transaction or compromise be declared null and void as regards the engagement requiring them to pay to Abat's executor four thousand nine hundred dollars, as the price of said property. 3. That their tutor and co-heir who signed the transaction, be prohibited from paying said sum of four thousand nine hundred dollars. 4. That under the articles 303 and 739, No. 6, of the Code of Practice, relative to acts obtained by unlawful means, they pray for an injunction to stay all proceedings under the order of seizure and sale. 5. That under the articles 739 and 740 of the Code of Practice, they pray that their under-tutor, by whom they institute this suit, be dispensed with giving security; and that Jean B. Grounx, f. m. c., their tutor, and the executors of Abat, be cited to answer their petition; that the transaction EASTERN DIST of the 3d of October, 1832, be annulled, and that in the f. p. c. vs. ABAT'S EX'S. Abat's executors excepted to the form of the plaintiffs' opposition to their order of seizure and sale, as being contrary to the article 738 of the Code of Practice. They deny generally the allegations of the plaintiffs, except the execution of the transaction or act of compromise; and deny specially that it was made or obtained either in error or by unlawful means, which charge is slanderous, and should be struck out. They allege, that at the time of the compromise or transaction, the pretended deed of sale of the 21st January, 1818, was well known to all parties to be a nullity, and was not, therefore, deemed necessary to be noticed or mentioned; that it was null and void, for the following reasons: 1. As a sale, it was without consideration and a disguised donation. 2. As a donation, it contained conditions contrary to good morals. 3. It was not recorded with the recorder of mortgages. 4. As a donation, it exceeded the disposable portion. 5. The donor subsequently declared in his will that the said sale was intended as a mere donation. 6. The parties to said act of sale, viz: the natural father and mother of the plaintiffs, have by a subsequent act, dated the 24th February, 1821, acknowledged and declared that said sale was feigned and simulated, and that it is hereby annulled and avoided. 7. Because the property claimed by the plaintiffs as minors in virtue of said sale, was inventoried and sold by order of the Court of Probates, as a part of the succession of Jean Grounx, deceased, their natural father. 8. Because in the settlement of said succession, the plaintiffs received their full share of the price of the very property they now seek to recover under the said pretended sale. 9. Because at the time of executing the act of sale of the 21st January, 1818, the plaintiffs were slaves, and incapable of acquiring property by purchase or donation. J. B. Grounx, tutor of the plaintiffs, appearing adversely, EASTERN Dist. answered and prayed, that the deed of transaction be declared June, 1834. good and maintained in full force between the contracting GROUNX ET ALS. f. p. c. parties; and that the executors of Abat make good the title to the property in contest, in pursuance of the obligation contracted in said transaction. He further prayed, that in case said property should be decreed to belong to said minors in virtue of the sale of the 21st January, 1818, that Abat's executors be ordered to pay the value thereof to him; and that he be dispensed from paying the price as agreed on in said transaction. The two causes, viz: the case of the order of seizure and sale by Abat's executors, against the present plaintiffs, was consolidated with the present suit, and both tried together. The plaintiffs were ordered to give security in the sum of two thousand dollars, before they could proceed with the injunction suit. Upon these pleadings and issues, the parties went to trial. The plaintiffs relied on the act of sale of the 21st January, 1818, by their natural father, of the property in question, in which he acknowledges that he sells and conveys the same to Marie Adelaide, f. w. c., and the mother of the plaintiffs, who was present, accepting said sale for her children, who were all minors. Grounx, in the same act, acknowledges the said minors to be his natural children by the said Adelaide. Abat's executors showed, by parole testimony, that this act of sale was well known to both parties at the date of the deed of transaction, and that the plaintiffs had been advised by counsel that it was a nullity. They introduced in evidence the transaction itself, in which both parties, being duly represented, settled and compromised all their difficulties, rights and law-suits up to its date, the 3d October, 1832. Grounx in his will, which was written in 1819 (also in evidence), acknowledges the plaintiffs to be his natural children, and gives them the right to take the property now in contest at its estimated price in the inventory, in lieu of certain legacies which he leaves them. In February, 1821, Grounx and Adelaide both signed a notarial act, in which they 718. June, 1834. f. p. c. v8. ABAT'S EX'S. EASTERN DIST. declared the act of 1818, under which the plaintiffs now claim, simulated, that no price was ever paid or intended to GROUNX ET ALS. be paid, and they cancel it. This act was produced in evidence. Abat was appointed dative executor of the succession of Grounx, after his death in 1823, under the will which was established and ordered to be executed. The property now in contest was inventoried at five thousand dollars, was sold at public sale by the register of wills for four thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars, the net proceeds being four thousand eight hundred dollars; one half or two thousand four hundred dollars, was paid over by the executor to Adelaide, the natural tutrix and mother of the plaintiffs, for their use and as their share of their natural father's estate under the will. Adelaide afterwards made a surrender of her property, and put her children on her bilan as privileged creditors for the sum of two thousand four hundred dollars, received from their father's estate. This sum was also put on the tableau of distribution to their credit, which was duly homologated by a judgment of the court. The evidence further showed that the plaintiffs, or some of them, received their portion of this money. The parish judge considered the act of sale under which the plaintiffs claimed, as a nullity; that it was cancelled by the act of the parties afterwards, which rendered it unnecessary to go into an examination of the validity of the transaction or compromise. He gave judgment for the executors of Abat, and dissolved the injunction. Judgment was signed on the 6th May, 1833. The plaintiffs presented their petition, and prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court, on their giving security in such sum as the court might direct for the costs of the appeal. On the 11th May the judge granted the appeal, and required the appellants to give security in the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, returnable to the third Monday of the next month. On the 20th May, D. Seghers, counsel for Abat's executors, obtained an alias order of seizure and sale against the disputed premises, on showing to the court that the judgment dissolving the injunction, had been notified to the plaintiffs |