Succession of Desina
Citations
- 123 La. 468
- 49 So. 23
- 1908 La. LEXIS 619
Syllabus
<p>1. Appeal and Error (§ 794*) — Motion to Dismiss — Remedy by Appeal.</p> <p>Where appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal in .the court below and their motion has been overruled, their only remedy is by appeal.</p> <p>The correctness of such ruling cannot be tested by motion to dismiss filed in the appellate court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 794.*]</p> <p>2. Appeal and Error (§ 150*) — Persons Entitled to Appeal — Interest.</p> <p>The vendor of shares of stock, being bound in warranty, has an interest in appealing from a judgment evicting his vendee.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 934; Dec. Dig. § 150.*]</p> <p>3. Donations — Check.</p> <p>The indorsement and delivery by the donor of a check payable to order constitutes a valid donation of the fund represented by such check.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Gifts, Cent. Dig. §§ 58-62; Dec. Dig. § 31.*]</p> <p>4. Descent and Distribution (§ 69*) — Validity — Persons Entitled to Attack.</p> <p>The collateral heirs of the donor cannot attack the donation of checks and money on ac,count of relative nullities, such as the,minority of the donor, or the disposition omnium bonorum.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Descent and Distribution, Cent. Dig. §§ 208-212; Dec. Dig. § 69.*]</p> <p>5. Husband and Wipe (§ 49%*) — Donations by Wife to Husband — Validity—Persons Entitled to Attack.</p> <p>The father, as forced heir, has no interest to annul donations made by his daughter to her husband, in a case where the law reserves to him a larger share than he would have inherited if such donations had not been made.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. § 258; Dee. Dig. § 49%.*]</p> <p>6. Husband and Wife (§ 49%*) — Gifts from Wife to Husband.</p> <p>Donations of cheeks and money by the wife to the husband, if not revoked during marriage, become the separate property of the husband.</p> <p>[Ed. N
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding Defendant could not rise to a duty to intervene when Defendant was never notified that the stevedores utilized a defected tractor and trailer
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Land
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.