· 3/15/1909

First Nat. Bank v. Hinton

Citations

123 La. 1018
49 So. 692
1909 La. LEXIS 816

Syllabus

1. Domicile (§§ 5, 8*) — Change—Evidence-Domicile of Wife. The question of domicile is one of intention as well as of fact, and, where it appears that a domicile has been acquired in another state, the parties seeking to show it has been change •ed to this state must overcome the legal presumption that it has not been changed by positive and satisfactory proof of the establishment .of a domicile here as a matter of fact,- with the intention of remaining here and of abandoning the former domicile. The wife has no other domicile than that of the husband. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Domicile, Cent. Dig. §§ 25, 36, 37; Dec. Dig. §§ 5, 8.*] 2. -Husband and Wife (§ 50*) — Validity — What Law Governs. Under the law of Mississippi (Code 1906, § 2517), a married woman may bind herself and her estate as though she were unmarried, and, where a married woman domiciled in that state is sued in a Louisiana court upon a contract, made and to be executed ia the state of her domicile, the rights of the parties will be determin>ed and enforced in accordance with the lex loci contractus, unless to do so would be to contravene some rule of public order or morals, or some law applicable to all persons litigating in the courts of this state. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 273; Dec. Dig. § 50.*] 3. Bills and Notes (§ 90*) — Consideration —Accommodation Notes. Under the anti-commercial statute of Mississippi (Code 1900, § 4001), a party to a promissory note, when sued, by one who has acquired the instrument through assignment or indorsement may set up, by way of defense, “want of lawful consideration,” but the statute does not undertake to define “lawful consideration,” and the plaintiff herein (a Mississippi bank) having received defendant’s notes payable to the order of and indorsed in blank by a company of which her husband was president, with the understanding, on all sides, that the notes were

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

discussing how expert methods need not be scientific but may be premised on practical and specialized experience
discussing how expert methods need not be scientific but may be premised on practical and specialized experience
noting that “‘[n]ews[people] have no constitutional right of 2 access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded’”; the First Amendment 3 only provides that “‘the media’s right of access [be] at least equal to that of the general public’”
reviewing journalists’ equal access claim to crime scene under the First Amendment
“Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government, because there is a strong risk that the government will act to censor ideas that oppose its own.” (quotation omitted)
freelance photojournalist working for media outlets

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Monroe

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.