Ackerman v. Larner
Citations
- 116 La. 101
- 40 So. 581
- 1906 La. LEXIS 474
Syllabus
<p>1. Estoppel—Scope and Effect.</p> <p>Estoppel, as predicated upon the maxim that no one can be heard alleging his own turpitude, is a doctrine which forms part of the policy of the law by reason of its recognition by the courts, but, as the law itself is paramount as to its policy, it follows that, in matters concerning which it speaks definitely, it cannot be controlled by an estoppel which is but the creature of its creature, and that such an estoppel cannot be given the effect of subordinating the law, and the policy of the law as declared by the law itself, to the will or infirmity of the citizen.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 19, Cent. Dig. Estoppel, § 146.]</p> <p>2. Same—Estoppel by Judicial Confession —When Prohibited.</p> <p>Article 2291 of the Civil Code, establishing estoppel by judicial confession, must be construed in its relation to other provisions of law which determine the capacity of the individual and the validity of his acts. One cannot confess away that which, in the interest of public order and good morals, he is prohibited by law from alienating.</p> <p>.'3. Same—Mutual Estoppel.</p> <p>It may happen that, a plaintiff being es-topped to allege a state of facts which the defendant is estopped to deny, the interest of justice will require that both should be liberated.</p> <p>4.Gifts—Onerous Donation.</p> <p>A manual gift may be free, onerous, or remunerative, and when the donor makes such a gift, omnium bonorum, on condition that the donee shall maintain him for the rest of his life, it will be dealt with as an onerous donation, and not as a commutative contract.</p> <p>5. Contracts — Gifts Omnium Bonorum — Power to Make—Prescription.</p> <p>A contract whereby one gives away his property, without reserving enough for his own subsistence, subject to the condition or charge that the donee shall thereafter maintain him, is void ab initio, as contravening a prohibitory law, enacted in the interest of public order and good morals
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding the discretionary function exception applied to claims against the United States for negligent failure to train, hire, and supervise TSA employees
- concluding government had not waived its sovereign immunity for alleged violation of Section 504
- “The FTCA only confers jurisdiction 15 over the United States of America, not federal agencies or those in charge of those 16 agencies.” (citations omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe, Sty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.