Brannan v. Babin

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Brannan v. Babin

380 So. 2d 163, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3986

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 27, 1979

DocketNo. 12956

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 380 So. 2d 163 (Brannan v. Babin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brannan v. Babin, 380 So. 2d 163, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3986 (La. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

COVINGTON, Judge.

Plaintiff-defendant in rule, William Brannan, brought a suit against Glenn L. Babin and Stanley A. LaFargue, to recover the principal sum of $30,000.00, allegedly fraudulently obtained by Babin and La-Fargue from Brannan. The trial judge rendered judgment in favor of Brannan, which was affirmed on appeal, with the Court of Appeal holding that Brannan had established that Babin and LaFargue had committed “a tort of intentional misrepresentation,” Brannon (Brannan) v. Babin, 366 So.2d 955 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1978).

In due course, Brannan sought to execute his judgment against certain immovable property belonging to the community of acquets and gains existing between Stanley A. LaFargue and Effie C. LaFargue, which was situated in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The judicial sale of the subject property was set for April 25, 1979. In the meantime, the plaintiff in rule, Effie C. LaFargue, sought injunctive relief to prevent the sale of the subject property. The defendant in rule, William Brannan, filed an exception of no cause of action, which the trial court sustained based on the case of Corpus Christi Parish Credit Union v. Martin, 358 So.2d 295 (La.1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 897, 99 S.Ct. 261, 58 L.Ed.2d 245 (1978).

Following the dismissal of the proceedings for injunctive relief and prior to the judicial sale, Stanley A. LaFargue paid the judgment in full, so that the judgment creditor, William Brannan, no longer has a [164]*164judgment upon which to execute. Because the judgment against LaFargue has been satisfied, no practical result can follow from any action we might take on appeal. It is well established that appellate courts do not give opinions on moot questions. Behler v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 251 La. 959, 207 So.2d 758 (1968). Bradley and Braud, Inc. v. Canady, 342 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COVINGTON, Judge.

Plaintiff-defendant in rule, William Brannan, brought a suit against Glenn L. Babin and Stanley A. LaFargue, to recover the principal sum of $30,000.00, allegedly fraudulently obtained by Babin and La-Fargue from Brannan. The trial judge rendered judgment in favor of Brannan, which was affirmed on appeal, with the Court of Appeal holding that Brannan had established that Babin and LaFargue had committed “a tort of intentional misrepresentation,” Brannon (Brannan) v. Babin, 366 So.2d 955 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1978).

In due course, Brannan sought to execute his judgment against certain immovable property belonging to the community of acquets and gains existing between Stanley A. LaFargue and Effie C. LaFargue, which was situated in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The judicial sale of the subject property was set for April 25, 1979. In the meantime, the plaintiff in rule, Effie C. LaFargue, sought injunctive relief to prevent the sale of the subject property. The defendant in rule, William Brannan, filed an exception of no cause of action, which the trial court sustained based on the case of Corpus Christi Parish Credit Union v. Martin, 358 So.2d 295 (La.1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 897, 99 S.Ct. 261, 58 L.Ed.2d 245 (1978).

Following the dismissal of the proceedings for injunctive relief and prior to the judicial sale, Stanley A. LaFargue paid the judgment in full, so that the judgment creditor, William Brannan, no longer has a [164]*164judgment upon which to execute. Because the judgment against LaFargue has been satisfied, no practical result can follow from any action we might take on appeal. It is well established that appellate courts do not give opinions on moot questions. Behler v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 251 La. 959, 207 So.2d 758 (1968). Bradley and Braud, Inc. v. Canady, 342 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 So. 2d 163, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brannan-v-babin-lactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack