Orr v. Walker, 236 La. 740, 109 So. 2d 7 (1959) Facts: D approached P about the purchase of land stating that he had obtained a deed from Talley for the land adjoining Ps property. D knew the conveyance from Talley was not a bona fide conveyance. D falsely stated that he was going to occupy the premises as his home. P would have never sold land to Talley because of their unfavorable prior dealings Orr v. Talley. P sold because he thought he was getting rid of an undesirable neighbor. Talley was the real party in interest behind the purported conveyance. Talley used D to negotiate the conveyance for him. D claims no pecuniary gain from it. Procedural history: P sued D to annul deed on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The trial ct found in favor of P, annulling the transfer. The Court of Appeal reversed and dismissed. Writ granted. Issue: Whether Ps petition sufficiently alleged practice of artifice respecting existing facts, designed to cause inconvenience to P, grantor; and whether the conveyance can be annulled based upon this? Rule: A person may have his contract annulled when it has been obtained through the practice of artifice by another designed to cause him inconvenience; the sustaining of pecuniary loss isnt essential. Holding: Yes; and yes. Reasoning: The petition clearly alleged that at the time of purchase, D represented to P that it was for his own use, but it was really in furtherance of a conspiracy with Talley to acquire the property for him. So, the petitions shows that consummation of the sale depended on, and resulted only b/c of Ds assertions that he had acquired Talleys property; that he exhibited to P a purported deed, which was not a valid conveyance by Talley to him, but a fake instrument to deceive P, that was supposedly destroyed after P executed conveyance to D. Procedural result: Ct of Appeal judgment reversed & set aside; exceptions of no right & no cause of action overruled; & case remanded to Ct of Appeal for its consideration of remaining exceptions/merits.