Mire v. Crowe
Louisiana Court of Appeal
439 So.2d 517 (1983)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1968, Levi L. Crowe Jr. (defendant) sold land in Louisiana to Karl Mire (plaintiff). Prior to the sale, the men walked the boundaries of the property to be conveyed (the property). Crowe pointed out (1) a two-acre parcel, or “Lot 6,” and (2) an adjacent area in “Lot 7” that contained an identifiable hill (the disputed tract). Crowe and Mire’s sales document described a conveyance of “Lot Six” only. Between 1968 and 1981, Mire surveyed the property; erected a fence around the property, including the disputed tract; and conducted numerous possessory activities on the disputed tract, including fishing, hunting, grazing animals, and constructing a barn. Over the years, Crowe and his friends went through the disputed tract to reach Crowe’s campsite. In July 1981, Mire leased the property for the purpose of housing horses. The following month, Crowe advised the lessee that he had to stop building on or developing “the hill.” In December 1981, Mire initiated a possessory action against Crowe alleging that Crowe had disturbed Mire’s possession of the premises by asserting a claim of ownership over the disputed tract. Following a trial, the court entered judgment in Mire’s favor, finding he was entitled to maintain possession of the disputed tract. Crowe appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.