Lemunier v. McCearly
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 30, 1973 278 So. 2d 875; La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., February 2, 1961 127 So. 2d 369; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., February 14, 1978 355 So. 2d 635
Lemunier v. McCearly, 37 La. Ann. 133 (1885).
Cited by
- Jacquet v. Disimone 143 So. 710 La. 1932
- Whitbeck v. Whitbeck 127 So. 888 La. 1930
Opinion text
The opinion of the Court was delivered by On Motion to Dismiss. Todd, J. This motion is on the ground that the appeal is taken by Mrs. McCearly alone without, the authorization of her husband in the court. Both husband and wife were joined in the suit, and jointly answered in the lower court. The. wife, has appealed. *134 In the case of Hill & Co., vs. Trippelt and wife, 10 Ann., 554, exactly similar in the respects mentioned to the present one, it was held, (quoting): “ That the defendants having been both joined in this suit by plaintiffs and appellees, and having both appeared and defended the same, the authorization of the husband to the wife to take the appeal (which was by motion) must be inferred.” We think this ruling correct, and the motion to dismiss is therefore denied.