Hendricks v. Wood

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Hendricks v. Wood

33 La. Ann. 1051

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 15, 1881

DocketNo. 1020

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 La. Ann. 1051 (Hendricks v. Wood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hendricks v. Wood, 33 La. Ann. 1051 (La. 1881).

Pincite

Opinions

On Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Poché, J.

This is an action for separation of property, in which plaintiff prays for a moneyed judgment against her husband for $2700,. [1052]*1052. amount of her paraphernal funds alleged to have been received and converted to his own use by her husband.

Under the pleadings, this case presents an issue involving an .amount clearly within our jurisdiction; the fact that plaintiff may utterly fail, under the evidence, to prove the whole or any part of her -claim, cannot be considered in determining the question of jurisdiction. The amount of the claim, and not the amount which may be proved, affords the test of our jurisdiction.

Appellees’ motion to dismiss, resting on the ground that plaintiff’s demand is fictitious under the evidence, is untenable, and the motion is, therefore, denied.

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

On Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Poché, J.

This is an action for separation of property, in which plaintiff prays for a moneyed judgment against her husband for $2700,. [1052]*1052. amount of her paraphernal funds alleged to have been received and converted to his own use by her husband.

Under the pleadings, this case presents an issue involving an .amount clearly within our jurisdiction; the fact that plaintiff may utterly fail, under the evidence, to prove the whole or any part of her -claim, cannot be considered in determining the question of jurisdiction. The amount of the claim, and not the amount which may be proved, affords the test of our jurisdiction.

Appellees’ motion to dismiss, resting on the ground that plaintiff’s demand is fictitious under the evidence, is untenable, and the motion is, therefore, denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 La. Ann. 1051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendricks-v-wood-la-1881.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack