cl-7268596
Precedential
Processed
Hayes v. Hayes
Hayes v. Hayes, 8 La. Ann. 468 (1852).
Cited by
- Hymel v. Eagle, Inc. 7 So. 3d 1249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
- Plantation Pipe Line Co. v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp. 222 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
- Succession of Oliver 1 La. App. 526 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1925
Opinion text
Slidell, J. The exception pleaded by the defendant and which vims overruled by the Court below, involves the proposition that a man may lawfully agree with another to limit his responsibility in damages for a future offence against such person’s good name. Such a doctrine is as inadmissible as it is novel. It is manifestly inconsistent with public policy that a man should he permitted to stipulate a partial impunity for the commission of a future immoral act. Such being our opinion, it is unnecessary to inquire whether the motion to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the judgment was not final, was well made. Judgment affirpied, with costs.