Huber v. Huber

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Huber v. Huber

59 So. 44, 131 La. 144, 1912 La. LEXIS 1090

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 28, 1912

DocketNo. 19,185

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 59 So. 44 (Huber v. Huber) 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

Huber v. Huber, 59 So. 44, 131 La. 144, 1912 La. LEXIS 1090 (La. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

On Exceptions.

MONROE, J.

The allegations that plaintiffs own the property mentioned in the petition in indivisión with others, who are named, that they do not desire a continuance of that relation, and that the property cannot. be divided in kind, disclose an interest, call for proper parties, are in proper form, and contain nothing to indicate that the action is premature or prescribed (and it could not well be both), that the rights of the petitioners have been extinguished, or that there is any improper cumulation. The property might be more definitely described, and the title under which plaintiffs claim, as also the extent of their respective interests, might be set forth; but that is not always necessary, as the question of title is not always an issue in a partition suit. Where, as in this ease, defendants desire that it should be done, we think plaintiffs should be allowed to amend.

The judgment appealed from is therefore set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings, at the cost of the defendants.

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

On Exceptions.

MONROE, J.

The allegations that plaintiffs own the property mentioned in the petition in indivisión with others, who are named, that they do not desire a continuance of that relation, and that the property cannot. be divided in kind, disclose an interest, call for proper parties, are in proper form, and contain nothing to indicate that the action is premature or prescribed (and it could not well be both), that the rights of the petitioners have been extinguished, or that there is any improper cumulation. The property might be more definitely described, and the title under which plaintiffs claim, as also the extent of their respective interests, might be set forth; but that is not always necessary, as the question of title is not always an issue in a partition suit. Where, as in this ease, defendants desire that it should be done, we think plaintiffs should be allowed to amend.

The judgment appealed from is therefore set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings, at the cost of the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 So. 44, 131 La. 144, 1912 La. LEXIS 1090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huber-v-huber-la-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack