Marchand v. Livandais

Supreme Court

Marchand v. Livandais

127 U.S. 775, 8 S. Ct. 1389, 32 L. Ed. 324, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2040

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 16, 1888

Docket1077

StatusPublished

This text of 127 U.S. 775 (Marchand v. Livandais) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marchand v. Livandais, 127 U.S. 775, 8 S. Ct. 1389, 32 L. Ed. 324, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2040 (1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice Miller:

A motion is made to dismiss this cause because Charles Lafitte, the husband of the defendant in error, is not named in the writ of error as a party to the proceedings. The judgment was in favor of his wife Josephine, and he was a party authorizing'her in the suit below, according to the forms of the Louisiana law, which require that the husband must be joined with the wife when she sues, whether he has any interest or not; and the plaintiff in error has served a citation on Lafitte, although he was not named in the writ of error. It may be doubtful whether Lafitte is a necessary party in this court, seeing he was not a party to the judgment. If for conformity’s sake he ought to have been brought here to aid his 'wife in the writ of error, the citation to him is sufficient for that purpose. The motion to dismiss the case is overruled.

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

Me. Justice Miller:

A motion is made to dismiss this cause because Charles Lafitte, the husband of the defendant in error, is not named in the writ of error as a party to the proceedings. The judgment was in favor of his wife Josephine, and he was a party authorizing'her in the suit below, according to the forms of the Louisiana law, which require that the husband must be joined with the wife when she sues, whether he has any interest or not; and the plaintiff in error has served a citation on Lafitte, although he was not named in the writ of error. It may be doubtful whether Lafitte is a necessary party in this court, seeing he was not a party to the judgment. If for conformity’s sake he ought to have been brought here to aid his 'wife in the writ of error, the citation to him is sufficient for that purpose. The motion to dismiss the case is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 U.S. 775, 8 S. Ct. 1389, 32 L. Ed. 324, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marchand-v-livandais-scotus-1888.