Hayes v. Hayes

8 La. Ann. 468
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided September 15, 1852·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Slidell, J.

The exception pleaded by the defendant and which vims overruled by the Court below, involves the proposition that a man may lawfully agree with another to limit his responsibility in damages for a future offence against such person’s good name. Such a doctrine is as inadmissible as it is novel. It is manifestly inconsistent with public policy that a man should he permitted to stipulate a partial impunity for the commission of a future immoral act.

Such being our opinion, it is unnecessary to inquire whether the motion to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the judgment was not final, was well made.

Judgment affirpied, with costs.

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

Hayes v. Hayes, 8 La. Ann. 468 (La. 1852).

8 La. Ann. 468 (Hayes v. Hayes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hymel v. Eagle, Inc.
7 So. 3d 1249 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
Conoco, Inc. v. MEDIC SYSTEMS, INC.
107 F. Supp. 2d 725 (W.D. Louisiana, 2000)
Elmer v. Coplin
485 So. 2d 171 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Battig v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
482 F. Supp. 338 (W.D. Louisiana, 1977)
Reeves v. Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company
282 So. 2d 503 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1973)
Plantation Pipe Line Co. v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp.
222 So. 2d 905 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1969)
Succession of Oliver
1 La. App. 526 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1925)
Bowman v. Phillips
41 Kan. 364 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1889)