## Facts

- A 1.5-acre tract in Lincoln Parish, Louisiana, was claimed by the Skinners and the Simontons under competing chains of title.
- The Simontons enclosed and physically possessed the disputed tract beginning in 1947.
- Pure Oil Company held mineral leases from both sets of claimants and deposited disputed royalties into the court registry through a concursus proceeding to determine entitlement.
- The Skinners also brought a boundary action against the Simontons; the parties stipulated that the ownership judgment in the concursus would control the boundary dispute.
- The lower courts found that neither side proved valid record title to the tract; the Skinners’ chain contained a 16-year gap (1858–1874).

## Issues

1. In a real action functionally equivalent to a petitory action against a defendant in possession, must the plaintiff prove title sufficient to dispossess the possessor without regard to the possessor’s title?
2. Does Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3654 permit judgment for a claimant based only on “better title” where the adverse party is in physical possession and lacks a deed translative of title?

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and trial court judgments that favored the Skinners.
- The court held that, against a defendant in possession, a plaintiff must prove ownership by establishing the plaintiff’s own valid title (or other legally sufficient acquisitive title) independent of deficiencies in the possessor’s title.
- The Skinners did not meet that burden due to the break in their chain of title.
- Judgment was rendered in favor of the Simonton interests as possessors, which controlled entitlement to the disputed royalties and the boundary determination under the parties’ stipulation.

## Legal Principles

- In a petitory action against a defendant in possession, the plaintiff must make out title to the disputed immovable “without regard to the title” of the possessor.
- A plaintiff cannot dispossess a possessor merely by showing a comparatively “better title” when the plaintiff’s own title is not legally sufficient.
- Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3654 does not displace traditional petitory-action burden rules where the dispute is, in substance, an ownership contest against an established possessor.
- Possession is protected unless the claimant seeking to disturb it proves ownership by a legally adequate title.

## Conclusion

The court required the claimants seeking to displace an established possessor to prove their own valid title (or equivalent acquisitive title) independent of the possessor’s title, and it ruled for the possessors because the opposing chain of title contained a fatal gap.


Pure Oil Co. v. Skinner, 294 So. 2d 797 (La. 1974)