No. 3397 Precedential Processed

Bonnette v. Flournoy

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed January 12, 1929 · 119 So. 736

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 29, 1971 243 So. 2d 282; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 7, 1969 221 So. 2d 286; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 16, 1951 52 So. 2d 587; La., April 15, 1874 26 La. Ann. 299

Cited by

Wagenvoord Broadcasting Co. v. Blanchard 261 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Vernon v. Gillham 179 So. 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Breaux v. Roussell 151 So. 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
White v. Kennedy 135 So. 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Steadman v. Wallace 130 So. 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930

Opinion text

STATEMENT OF THE CASÉ. REYNOLDS, J. Plaintiff, Simon Bonnette, for and on behalf of his minor daughter, Louise Bonnette, sued defendant, Dave Flournoy, for judgment for $8,000.00, for injuries received by her in an accident alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence. Defendant excepted that the petition incorrectly spelled plaintiff’s name “Bonette”, whereupon, by amended petition, service of which was accepted by defendant, it was corrected to “Bonnette”, and the exception overruled. There upon defendant answered, denying negligence and alleging that the accident and injury to plaintiff’s daughter was caused solely by negligent driving of the automobile in which she was riding by its operator. Pendente lite plaintiff’s daughter was married, and she applied for and was granted authority by the court to be substituted as plaintiff instead of her father and to continue the prosecution of the suit. On these issues the case was tried and there was judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for $1500.00. and defendant appealed. OPINION. ON THE EXCEPTION. Defendant insists that his exception to the petition on the ground that plaintiff’s name was incorrectly spelled should have been sustained. The incorrect spelling “Bonette” and the correct spelling “Bonnette” were idem sonans and an error that *469 could have been corrected as it was immediately without prejudice to defendant. There was no error in overruling defendant’s exception. ON THE RIGHT OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER, ON BECOMING MARRIED, TO BE SUBSTITUTED AS PLAINTIFF AND PROSECUTE THE SUIT. At the time the suit was filed plaintiff’s daughter was a minor and unmarried. Pendente lite she was married: The marriage emancipated her (Civil Code, Article 379), and she at once became qualified and entitled to prosecute the suit to conclusion without the aid of her father (Turner vs. Standard Oil Co., 1 La. App. 665 ). On application to the court she was substituted as plaintiff instead of her father. Defendant complains of this order. We find no error in the ruling.