It would seem that the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, after determining that the land involved was situate in another state and another judicial district, should have dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. 1 Barron Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Rules Ed., 137 et seq. § 72; Smith v. Landis, 5 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 166; Woolgar v. La Coste, D.C.W.D.La. 1947, 69 F. Supp. 571. We think the judgment of the Court sitting in Louisiana is without validity.

It will be noted that the opinion confused the service of an answer and the making of an appearance, an attitude which is rejected in several opinions. Then in Woolgar v. La Coste, D.C.La. 1947, 69 F. Supp. 571, the same judge denied a plaintiff's right to dismiss at his election after the defendant had moved for summary judgment. But the defendant had also answered more than a year before presenting the motion for summary judgment.

A. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana was without jurisdiction to entertain said action, adjudicate and decree the title to, or claims or interests in, real properties situated in Mississippi. Sharp v. Sharp, 166 P. 175; Wilson v. Thelen, 110 Mont. 305, 100 P.2d 923, 311 U.S. 651, 65 L.Ed. 417, 61 S.Ct. 20; Barringer v. Ray (Wyo.), 287 P.2d 629; Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 89 L.Ed. 2079, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 1469; Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 91 L.Ed. 832, 67 S.Ct. 657; Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., 337 U.S. 535, 93 L.Ed. 1524, 69 S.Ct. 1235; Regan v. Merchants Transfer Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530, 93 L.Ed. 1520, 69 S.Ct. 1233; Sidebottom v. Robison, 216 F.2d 816; Erwin v. Borrow, 217 F.2d 522; Butler v. Bolinger (La.), 133 So. 778; Woolgar v. LaCoste, 69 F. Supp. 571; Weaver v. Atlas Oil Co., 31 F.2d 484; Smith v. Landis, 211 F.2d 166; Tyler v. Stanolind Oil Gas Co., 77 F.2d 802; Campbell v. Brown, 7 Miss. (6 How.) 106; City of Pascagoula v. Krebs, 151 Miss. 676, 118 So. 286; Sutton v. Archer, 93 Miss. 603, 46 So. 705; Steele v. Steele, 152 Miss. 365, 118 So. 721; Dulion v. Folkes, 153 Miss. 91, 120 So. 437; Hayes v. Federal Land Bank of N.O., 162 Miss. 877, 140 So. 340; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 174 Miss. 643, 165 So. 414; Learned v. Sharp, 182 Miss. 333, 181 So. 142; American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Kincade, 219 Miss. 653, 69 So.2d 820; Duvall v. Duvall, 224 Miss. 546, 80 So.2d 752, 81 So.2d 695; A.L.I., Restatement of the Law (Judgments), pp. 21, 23, 129; Vol. I, Freeman on Judgments, Sec. 336 p. 674; Vol. III, Ibid., Secs. 1384, 1409 pp. 2858, 2905; Vol. I, Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, Sec. 298 p. 688. II. Appellant's motion that the bill of complaint and amended bills of complaint exhibited against it in this cause be dismissed with preju

"The [L.S.A.] Civil Code in Article 2276 provides that 'Neither shall parol evidence be admitted against or beyond what is contained in the acts, nor on what may have been said before, or at the time of making them, or since.' "The case of Ceromi v. Harris [ 187 La. 701], 175 So. 462, says that '* * parol evidence is inadmissible to create a title in one who never owned the property or to show that the vendee was in reality some other person than the person named in the act of sale.' Also, in the case of Woolgar v. La Coste [D.C.], 69 F. Supp. 571, it was held that 'Under Louisiana law parol evidence is inadmissible to put title to real estate in one to whom title has not been transferred by deed, though as attorney in fact he negotiated the transfer to buyer named in the deed and paid the purchase price.' "Authorities on this subject are legion, including Franz v. Mohr [La. App.