Montgomery v. Koester

35 La. Ann. 1091
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedNovember 15, 1883
DocketNo. 8048
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 35 La. Ann. 1091 (Montgomery v. Koester) 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
Montgomery v. Koester, 35 La. Ann. 1091 (La. 1883).

Opinions

On the Exception.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Eenner, J.

This is a personal action brought by Montgomery, in his own name and right,"against the defendant.

The latter had filed answer and the cause was at issue.

Thereafter a motion was filed, suggesting a transfer by Montgomery to. Mrs. G-ullifer, and an order was entered recognizing her as subrogee.

The-case was taken up for trial on 25th May, testimony taken on that and various subsequent days, to which the cause was continued, until 15th June, when defendant filed an exception to the effect that “Mrs. G-ullifer, subrogated, is a married woman and hath averred and proved no facts which warrant the Court in rendering judgment in her favor, and she is absolutely without capacity to stand in judgment. Wherefore, he prays that this exception be sustained, and plaintiff’s suit be dismissed with costs.”

’ Manifestly, this exception does not go to the dismissal of the suit, ■which was properly brought and at issue before the subrogation took place. The exception simply attacks the subrogation and the rights [1093]*1093of the-subrogee thereunder. In absence of any interest proved, or even asserted in the defendant, the validity and effect of the subrogation seem to be matters between plaintiff and his subrogee, and not concerning the defendant. The suit proceeded in the name of the original plaintiff; the judgment, by its terms, is ‘‘in favor of plaintiff, Robt. E. Montgomery, Mrs Catherine G-ullifer, subrogated;” satis-' faction of the judgment will securely discharge the defendant, and he has no other interest in the matter.

The authorities quoted as to suits improperly brought in the name of the wife do not apply to such a case.

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

Related

Pepper v. Triplet
864 So. 2d 181 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2004)
Young v. Sentry Insurance Company
319 So. 2d 419 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1975)
Holland v. Buckley
305 So. 2d 113 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)
Osoinach v. Roth
250 So. 2d 449 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1971)
Rolen v. Maryland Casualty Company
240 So. 2d 42 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1970)
Clark v. Brings
169 N.W.2d 407 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1969)
Mercadel v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company
144 So. 2d 670 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1962)
Frederickson v. Kepner
187 P.2d 800 (California Court of Appeal, 1947)
Willis v. Schuster
28 So. 2d 518 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1946)
Hartman v. Aschaffenburg
12 So. 2d 282 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1943)
Tripani v. Meraux
165 So. 453 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1936)
Woulfe v. D'Antoni
158 So. 394 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1935)
Johnson v. Butterworth
157 So. 121 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1934)
Fine v. Hiller
146 So. 50 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1933)
Peyronnin v. Riley
132 So. 235 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1931)
Mercer v. Marston
3 La. App. 97 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1925)
Gillespie v. Blaise
3 La. App. 59 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1925)
Thatcher v. Simkin
2 La. App. 113 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1925)
Clinkenbeard v. Reinert
225 S.W. 667 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1920)
Sanders v. O'Callaghan
82 N.W. 969 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 La. Ann. 1091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-koester-la-1883.