
    DAVIS’S HEIRS vs. PREVOST’S HEIRS.
    Western Dist.
    
      September, 1834.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, THE JUDGE THEREOF PRESIDING.
    In a petitory action, where the defendants, their vendors and warrantors pleaded, 1st. The general issue ; 2d. Prescription, by thirty years uninterrupted possession; 3d. Prescription, by more than ten years possession under a just title and in good faith; 4th. Silence of the plaintiffs for moro than forty years in not asserting their title; and in support of these pleas, offered the testimony of witnesses to prove and make complete their chain of title, which was objected to by the plaintiffs; 1st. Because the defendants having admitted in their pleadings, that they had a written title, must produce it or account for its loss; 2d. Parole evidence cannot be received to prove title to land, oreven its assessment for taxes ; 3d. Because the object is to prove a reputation of title to land, which cannot be done, and being admitted : Held, that this evidence is illegal and inadmissible ; and being admitted absolutely the District Court erred, because it is to judge of the admissibility of testimony and cannot discharge itself from this obligation by transferring it to the jury. It must be satisfied that the best evidence cannot be had before it admits inferior.
    In this case the following principle is settled and decided. 6 Martin, N. S. 265.
    This is a petitory action, which was commenced in 1819, to recover from the defendants a tract of land, containing sixty arpents of land in front, by forty-two in depth, on both sides of the Bayou Teche. The plaintiffs derive title in virtue of three Spanish grants of twenty arpents each, to C. & J. Dugat, and J. B. Labeauve, in the year 1777. The defendants claim under the same original title, and set up a chain of title derived therefrom, through several conveyances and possession of the land in contest. See statement of the facts of this case in 12 Martin, 445. It was argued in the Western District, at the September term, 1822-3, by Mr. Bullard for the plaintiffs, and by Moreau Lislet, and Mr. J. S. Johnston for the defendants. See ^Martin, 445, and 1 Martin, JV*. S. 650. ■
    At the September term, 1827, in Opelousas, an opinion was pronounced, in which the judgment of the District Court was reversed, and judgment entered for the plaintiffs against Prevost’s heirs; and in their favor against Macarty’s heirs, who were called in warranty.
    
      Mazureau for Macarty’s heirs,
    called in warranty, presented a petition for a re-hearing of this cause, at the September term, 1828. The re-hearing was granted.
    
      Brownson &/■ Henrlen for the plaintiffs,
    replied in writing to the petition for a re-hearing, which without further argument, was submitted to the court.
   Martin J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

At the request of the defendants, a re-hearing has been granted in this case. On a re-consideration of the opinion already pronounced, we are left under the impression that it ought not to be changed.

It is, therefore, ordered, that the former judgment of this court be maintained, in the same manner, as if no re-hearing had been granted.  