Hopkins v. Crow
This text of 67 So. 197 (Hopkins v. Crow) 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.
Opinion
Tbe plaintiff’s petition contains tbe allegations and prayer for a revocatory action, and also tbe following additional allegations and prayer, to wit:
“That the said transfer of land was without any real consideration; that the consideration therein expressed is erroneous; and that the said act does not evidence a real and genuine sale.”
“Prays that said transfer be entirely revoked.”
Tbis allegation and prayer are sufficient to sustain tbe action en declaration de simulation; so that tbis action and tbe revocatory action are included in tbe same petition. Usually when both of these actions are urged in one petition it is done in tbe alternative, but tbis precaution was not taken in tbe present case. No exception was based on that circumstance however; tbe only exception filed, which is tbe one we are now called upon to consider, was to tbe jurisdiction of tbe court ratione materise.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that, in so far as the exception to the jurisdiction is applicable to the revocatory action, the judgment overruling same is set aside, and that said exception is now sustained, but that, in so far as the said exception is applicable to the action en declaration de simulation, the judgment overruling same is affirmed; the costs of the present application to be paid in equal parts by plaintiff and defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
67 So. 197, 136 La. 267, 1915 La. LEXIS 1698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-crow-la-1915.