Mercadel v. Mercadel
Mercadel v. Mercadel, 155 So. 391 (La. 1934).
Cited by
- Dean v. Nunez 503 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
- Daniels v. Soileau 311 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
- Welch v. Core Farms, Inc. 250 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Meche 232 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
- Andras v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 224 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
- Blanks v. S. H. Kress Co. 204 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Enis v. Enis 205 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
- Hebert v. Valenti 179 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
- State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Cefalu 146 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
- Thompson v. Walker 37 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
- Cotton v. Wright 36 So. 2d 713 La. 1948
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Mechanics & Traders' Insurance v. Gerson 38 La. Ann. 349
- Geordano v. Thomas 13 La. 315
Opinion text
BRUNOT, Justice. This is a suit for a divorce. It is based upon acts of adultery alleged to have been committed by the defendant with a man named Erank Stephens on or about April 24, 1932, and between that date and May 6, 1932. The suit was filed on the last-named date, but, for some unexplained reason, no effort was made, to prosecute it until February 14, 1933, when the minutes show that a preliminary default was entered. Before the default was confirmed the defendant filed an answer to the suit and a re-conventional demand, and prayed for judgment in reconvention, in her favor and against her husband, decreeing a separation a mensa et thoro between them, and for the custody and control of their minor child pending the final determination of the suit. About two months after issue was thus joined, the plaintiff, with leave of-the court, filed a supplemental and amended petition in which acts, indicative of moral turpitude on the part of the defendant, are alleged to have been committed by her some time subsequent to the filing of her answer. The defendant excepted to the filing of the supplemental and amended petition. This exception was heard and maintained, the order authorizing the filing of the supplemental petition was rescinded, and the supplemental and amended petition was dismissed. This appeal is from that ruling. It is apparent that the appeal is from an interlocutory order that cannot cause the appellant irreparable injury, and, as this is *897 an ordinary suit, there is no appeal from such an order. Mechanics’ & Traders’ Insurance Co. v. Nathan Gerson et al., 38 La. Ann. 349 ; Penrice v. Crothwaite et al., 11 Mart. (O. S.) 537 ; Geordano v. Thomas et al., 13 La. 315 . The appellee has not moved to dismiss the appeal, but we consider it to be the duty of the court, ex proprio motu, to do so. The appeal is therefore dismissed at appellant’s cost.