Albinest v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad

Citations

• 107 La. 133

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. In a suit for damages by the widow of the man killed, the answer of defendant specially denying plaintiff’s capacity as widow, denying that she had ever been the dead man’s wife, and averring that at the time of her marriage to him he was already married to her knowledge, sufficed to • lay the basis for the introduction of proof of a former marriage.</p> <p>2. The law does not require marriage, like title to real estate, to be proved by documentary evidence. It may be proven by parol. Like other contracts, it may be proved by any species of evidence not prohibited by law, which does not presuppose a higher species of evidence within the power of the party.</p> <p>3. It appearing by affidavit filed here that a second woman, claiming to be the widow of the deceased, had, subsequent to the judgment herein, instituted suit for damages based on the same cause of action, and had filed with her petition a certificate showing a marriage with her prior in date to the other marriage, the cause will be remanded — it being held that the existence of the two widows to one husband, both claiming damages for his alleged negligent death, is such a vital question of fact as to justify the remanding to enable defendant to implead both in this suit and that they might contradictorily with one another establish which is the widow.</p>