Skip to main content
· 3/16/1908

Gilbert v. Mazerat

Citations

  • 121 La. 35
  • 46 So. 47
  • 1908 La. LEXIS 626

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal — Review—Objections Not Made Below.</p> <p>Where defendant in a petitory action, before answering, pleaded in bar the prescription of 10 years, and such plea was tried separately without objection, it is too late to complain that the plea should have been referred to the merits.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 2, Appeal and Error, §§ 1251, 1252.]</p> <p>2. Same — Harmless Error.</p> <p>Where, on a motion for a new trial, filed by the plaintiffs, it was for the first time suggested that some of them were unrepresented minors, and the court thereupon ordered the case reopened for further evidence on the question of minority, held, that the plaintiffs of full age, who made no objections to the order and tendered no additional evidence, were not prejudiced by the proceedings.</p> <p>3. Minors — Actions By and Against — Representation by Tutors.</p> <p>Minors can neither sue nor be sued, except through their duly appointed and .qualified tutors. A father, never confirmed as natural tutor, cannot represent his minor children in a judicial proceeding.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Infants, §§ 195, 196, 222-229.]</p> <p>4. Prescription — Suspension During Minority.</p> <p>Title to real estate may be acquired against the true owner by actual possession in good faith, and under title translative of property, for a period of 10 years. The current of this prescription is suspended during the minority of' the true owner.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.' — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 1, Adverse Possession, §§ 15-23, 65-76.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • applying Marshall’s holding to trademark infringement and collecting cases doing the same
  • “a non-resident’s website, although accessible in Florida, results in no tort committed within Florida and fails to subject a non-resident to Florida’s jurisdiction, unless a person in Florida views the website.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Land

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.