Mounicou v. Haistre
Mounicou v. Haistre, 162 So. 718 (La. 1935).
Cited by
- State v. Larson 653 So. 2d 1158 La. 1995
- Peek v. Alcohol Beverage Control Bd. 434 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
- Reynolds v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control 173 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
- A. & M. Pest Control Service, Inc. v. LaBurre 170 So. 2d 855 La. 1965
- A. & M. Pest Control Service, Inc. v. LaBurre 170 So. 2d 855 La. 1965
- Thibodeaux v. City of Sulphur 140 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
- Fullilove v. US Casualty Company of New York 129 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
- City of Lafayette v. Elias 95 So. 2d 281 La. 1957
- Schwegmann Bros. v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control 43 So. 2d 248 La. 1949
- State v. Monsour 17 So. 2d 307 La. 1943
- Wall v. Close 14 So. 2d 19 La. 1943
- Peck v. City of New Orleans 5 So. 2d 508 La. 1941
Opinion text
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.