Stanley Matthews

Name: Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court
Author: Stanley Matthews

Summary

“Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Stanley Matthews. It explores elements such as Carite, separation of property and Clement.

Quotes from Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court (Stanley Matthews)

Stanley Matthews, Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court

“ It is only when the judgment of separation of property is founded on a cause, which results in the establishment of some claim against the husband's estate susceptible of execution, by some authentic act, or by judicial process to enforce it, that a neglect or failure to insist upon its execution is deemed conclusive evidence that it is the intention of the parties not to dissolve the community. The law in such cases for the protection of creditors, otherwise liable to be misled, annuls the unexecuted judgment of separation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court

“ But, in this case, the object of the action was not to recover moneys of the wife; it was simply to put an end to the community and then to secure to the wife and her children the future earnings she might derive from her untiring industry.'
In such a case the intent and effect of the judgment are merely to confer upon the wife, in respect to her future acquisitions, the fruits of her own industry, and the savings of her own economy, the right to act separately from her husband, as though she were sole; and the right becomes fixed and vested by its actual exercise. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court

“ Tremoulet told Carite that he had no desire to acquire the property, as he represented Clement, who resided in France, and who did not wish a sugar plantation, and would not know what to do with one if he had it; but that he would feel obliged to act upon the matured notes if the consequence of non-action was to be the seizure of the mortgaged propery by other creditors and the consequent diminution of the security. The upshot was his promise to abstain from a seizure under the mortgage until Carite should have time to arrange with his creditors, provided no seizure was made by other parties. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court

“ That all of her husband's property will not be sufficient to pay and satisfy the enormous debt which is due by him. That, in consequence of the above-recited circumstances, petitioner fears and believes that the earnings of her separate industry may be seized by her husband's creditors, and thus be lost to herself and children ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court

“ Art. 87 of of the Constitution of the State, of 1868, then in force, prescribes that parish courts 'shall have exclusive jurisdiction in original suits in all cases where the amount in dispute exceeds one hundred dollars and does not exceed five hundred dollars.' The only limitation of the jurisdiction is as to the amount of money involved in the controversy, and has no relation to the question, where the suit is not prosecuted for the recovery of money or money's worth. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court

“ Article 2425, Civil Code, which it is alleged regulates this proceeding, reads as follows: 'The wife may, during the marriage, petition against the husband for a separation of property, whenever her dowry is in danger, owing to the mismanagement of her husband or otherwise, or when the disorder of his affairs induces her to believe that his estate may not be sufficient to meet her rights and claims.'
An authoritative construction of this article is found in Wolf v. Lowry, 10 La. Ann. 272. The court there say: 'In Davock v. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews, Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court

“ In the present case there is no positive testimon that the defendants have suffered injury, resulting from the neglect to publish the decree of separation; nor can such injury be legally presumed from the whole tenor of the evidence.'
The authority of this case was recognized and the decision followed in Raiford v. Thorn, 15 La. Ann. 81, decided in 1860.
We have examined Spires v. McKelvy (23 id. 571) , Levistones v. Brady (11 id. 696) , Bostwick v. Gasquet (11 La. 534) , and Heyman v. ”

Stanley Matthews

Summary

Quotes from Carite v. Trotot — Opinion of the Court (Stanley Matthews)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature