Mounicou v. Haistre

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Mounicou v. Haistre

162 So. 718, 182 La. 885, 1935 La. LEXIS 1669

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 27, 1935

DocketNo. 32895.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 So. 718 (Mounicou v. Haistre) 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

Mounicou v. Haistre, 162 So. 718, 182 La. 885, 1935 La. LEXIS 1669 (La. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for the interdiction of the defendant. She is alleged to be an imbecile, notoriously insane, and not capable of taking care of herself or of managing her estate. The plaintiff is the son of a deceased first cousin of the defendant. The suit was dismissed on an exception of no .right of action, because there was living in the parish a first cousin, who was the nearest relation, of the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment dismissing his suit. The first cousin of the defendant was a widow named Mrs. Octavie Teoulet Lasalle, the daughter of a deceased brother of the defendant’s mother and of the plaintiff’s grandmother. The defendant’s mother and the plaintiff’s grandmother were dead when this suit was filed; and Mrs. Lasalle, the first cousin of the defendant, died after the plaintiff had appealed from the judgment dismissing his suit. A certified copy of the death certificate has been filed in this court; and it is admitted, of course, by counsel for the defendant, that Mrs. Lasalle is dead. The only reason, therefore, for the judgment which denied to the plaintiff 'a right of action has disappeared ; that is to say, that there was, when the judgment was rendered, a person who was of closer relation to the defendant than the plaintiff was. Whether that was a sufficient reason for the dismissal of the suit is a question which we need not now decide. It was the only reason for the judgment which was rendered, and, as the reason has vanished, the judgment must be set aside and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

The judgment is annulled and the case is ordered remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The defendant is *887 to pay the costs of this appeal; the question of liability for other court costs is to abide the final disposition of the case.

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

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for the interdiction of the defendant. She is alleged to be an imbecile, notoriously insane, and not capable of taking care of herself or of managing her estate. The plaintiff is the son of a deceased first cousin of the defendant. The suit was dismissed on an exception of no .right of action, because there was living in the parish a first cousin, who was the nearest relation, of the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment dismissing his suit. The first cousin of the defendant was a widow named Mrs. Octavie Teoulet Lasalle, the daughter of a deceased brother of the defendant’s mother and of the plaintiff’s grandmother. The defendant’s mother and the plaintiff’s grandmother were dead when this suit was filed; and Mrs. Lasalle, the first cousin of the defendant, died after the plaintiff had appealed from the judgment dismissing his suit. A certified copy of the death certificate has been filed in this court; and it is admitted, of course, by counsel for the defendant, that Mrs. Lasalle is dead. The only reason, therefore, for the judgment which denied to the plaintiff 'a right of action has disappeared ; that is to say, that there was, when the judgment was rendered, a person who was of closer relation to the defendant than the plaintiff was. Whether that was a sufficient reason for the dismissal of the suit is a question which we need not now decide. It was the only reason for the judgment which was rendered, and, as the reason has vanished, the judgment must be set aside and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

The judgment is annulled and the case is ordered remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The defendant is *887 to pay the costs of this appeal; the question of liability for other court costs is to abide the final disposition of the case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 718, 182 La. 885, 1935 La. LEXIS 1669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mounicou-v-haistre-la-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack