Lalmant v. De Poorter

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Lalmant v. De Poorter

3 Teiss. 350, 1906 La. App. LEXIS 61

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 14, 1906

DocketNo. 3929

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Teiss. 350 (Lalmant v. De Poorter) 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

Lalmant v. De Poorter, 3 Teiss. 350, 1906 La. App. LEXIS 61 (La. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

ESTOPINAL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment maintaining a plea of no cause of action.

The allegations of the petition are substantially that one John M. CooS was formerly the tutor of petitioner; that as such the tutor Came into possession of moneys and effects of his ward,the plaintiff herein; that the tutor was removed from his trust; that between the 25th of March, 1901, anud the 17th of February, 1902, the tutor had paid to the defendant Liven De Poorter various sums aggregating $1,446.00; that the sums so paid and turned over to De Poorter were the funds of and belonging to the minor;_ that the tutor is without means and is still indebted to the minors; that therefore the latter has a right to a judgment against De Poorter for the moneys so paid him by Coos, the tutor.

Judgment against Le Poorter is accordingly prayed for.

It is too clear to require argument that no cause of action is presented by such petition.

At most De Poorter is but a debtor of Coos and it will be time enough when by proper proceedings, the indebtedness of the tutor to the ward is established and a judgment is obtained against Coos, to seek to make the amount of such judgment out of DePoorter by garnishment proceedings.

The Judgment is affirmed.

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

ESTOPINAL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment maintaining a plea of no cause of action.

The allegations of the petition are substantially that one John M. CooS was formerly the tutor of petitioner; that as such the tutor Came into possession of moneys and effects of his ward,the plaintiff herein; that the tutor was removed from his trust; that between the 25th of March, 1901, anud the 17th of February, 1902, the tutor had paid to the defendant Liven De Poorter various sums aggregating $1,446.00; that the sums so paid and turned over to De Poorter were the funds of and belonging to the minor;_ that the tutor is without means and is still indebted to the minors; that therefore the latter has a right to a judgment against De Poorter for the moneys so paid him by Coos, the tutor.

Judgment against Le Poorter is accordingly prayed for.

It is too clear to require argument that no cause of action is presented by such petition.

At most De Poorter is but a debtor of Coos and it will be time enough when by proper proceedings, the indebtedness of the tutor to the ward is established and a judgment is obtained against Coos, to seek to make the amount of such judgment out of DePoorter by garnishment proceedings.

The Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Teiss. 350, 1906 La. App. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lalmant-v-de-poorter-lactapp-1906.