Succession of Damico

109 So. 402, 161 La. 725, 1925 La. LEXIS 1924
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMarch 30, 1925
DocketNo. 27018.
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 109 So. 402 (Succession of Damico) 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
Succession of Damico, 109 So. 402, 161 La. 725, 1925 La. LEXIS 1924 (La. 1925).

Opinion

St. PAUL, J.

This case was here before under No. 25327 of our docket (Succession of Damico, 155 La. 1036, 99 So. 862).

Thereupon we held:

“In a contest for administration of decedent’s succession between heirs and alleged widow, who had been divorced from a former husband for adultery with T., it was error to exclude evidence that decedent and T. were the same person; Civ. Code, art. 161, prohibiting guilty party in divorce from marrying accomplice.”

And again:

“In a contest for administration between decedent’s widow and his heirs, evidence that the widow had property of decedent in her possession, which immediately after decedent’s death disappeared, was admissible to show that the widow was not entitled to administration in preference to another heir, in view of Civ. Code, art. 1043.”

And the ease was therefore remanded for the admission of the evidence thus excluded.

I.

Again there was judgment below for the widow, and again the heirs have appealed.

The widow now moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that same is frivolous, and has been taken merely for delay, because *727 (it is alleged) the heirs offered no proof whatever in support of their charges, whilst the evidence adduced by the widow (it is alleged) shows conclusively that the charges are wholly unfounded.

II.

To dismiss an appeal is to refuse to entertain it. An appellate court may refuse to entertain an appeal (1) when it has no appellate jurisdiction therein; (2) when the appeal was not taken or perfected in time; (3) when the judgment below has been confessed or consented to; (4) when said judgment has been acquiesced in by voluntary execution thereof; (5) when the terms upon which the appeal has been 'granted (as to bond, etc.) have not been complied with; (6) when there is no appeal for want of an order granting an appeal; and (7) when the judgment, if definitive, has not been made executory by the signing thereof. Code Prac. arts. 546, 567, 574, 587, 593.

But otherwise, in civil cases, an appeal lies of right (generally suspensive, though sometimes only devolutive) from all final judgments, and also from such interlocutory judgments as may cause irreparable injury (Code Prac. arts. 565, 566, 575, 578, 580), except in cases tried before a district court, in the country parishes, involving $100 or less (Const. 1921, art. 7, §§ 29, 48, pp. 46, 51).

And in all cases where an appeal lies, such appeal must be granted, and cannot be denied because it is said to be frivolous, or taken merely for delay, or only “to abuse the right of appeal.” State ex rel. Duffard v. Recorder, 45 La. Ann. 1299, 14 So. 66.

III.

The remedy for an alleged frivolous appeal is, therefore, not the dismissal of the appeal, but the affirmance of the judgment appealed from when the appeal is heard in due course and actually found to be without merit.

Decree.

The motion to dismiss is therefore denied. Cause dismissed, June 4, 1926, by agreement of counsel.

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

Related

Powers v. City of Richmond
893 P.2d 1160 (California Supreme Court, 1995)
Taylor & Taylor Builders, Inc. v. Moore
393 So. 2d 792 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1981)
Joint Legislative Committee of the Legislature v. Strain
268 So. 2d 629 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1972)
Bowen v. Doyal
253 So. 2d 200 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1971)
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Holmes
205 So. 2d 416 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1967)
Darouse v. Mamon
201 So. 2d 362 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1967)
Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. v. Violet Trapping Co.
176 So. 2d 425 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1965)
Krauss Co. v. Develle
106 So. 2d 452 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1958)
Diecidue v. Kilpatrick
86 So. 2d 757 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1956)
Weeks v. Consolidated Underwriters
73 So. 2d 479 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1954)
Wilson v. Wilson
50 So. 2d 202 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1950)
Pugh v. Pugh
43 So. 2d 594 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1949)
Ferrier v. Mossler
23 So. 2d 341 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1945)
Woods v. William Rednour Transfer Storage Co.
3 So. 2d 213 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1941)
Nicholas v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
152 So. 779 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)
State v. Up-To-Date Shoe Repairing Co.
151 So. 74 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1933)
Borden v. Louisiana State Board of Education
123 So. 655 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1929)
Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education
123 So. 664 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1929)
Typhoon Fan Co. v. Pilsbury
118 So. 70 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1927)
Succession of Pavelka
109 So. 403 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 So. 402, 161 La. 725, 1925 La. LEXIS 1924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/succession-of-damico-la-1925.