parties-Arts. 1025, 1027, 2082, 2085, 2089, 2098 C.C.
On the 15th October, 1910, the appellant's wife bought an immoveable Droperty by oral contract from one D.
She having died the appellant was appointed tutor to her children, heirs to the estate. Jn the 29th of November, 1910, D. was legally asked to sign a deed of sale but refused to do so.
The next day D. died, leaving his wife B. as usufructuary legatee of his estate and naming her testamentary executrix with power to sell. In January, an action en passation de titre was brought by the appellant against B.
In February, 1911, the appellant registered a notice or bordereau alleging the mis-en-demeure served upon D.
On the 23rd of June, 1913, judgment was rendered maintaining the appellant's action, which judgment was confirmed on appeal, both judgments being registered as soon as rendered.
On the 3rd of March, 1911, B. sold the same property to the respondent, who had knowledge of the alleged sale to appellant's wife and of the institution of the action en passation de titre, this deed of sale being registered some days later. After judgment had been rendered by the appellate court in the above action, the appellant brought the present action au petitoire against the respondent in order to be put in possession of the immoveable property.
Held that the mere fact of the respondent's knowledge of the anterior sale did not deprive him of the benefit of priority of registration of his own title.
*PREsErr.-Idington, Duff, Anglin and Mignault JJ. and Bernier J. ad hoc.