TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Witbeck v. Witbeck

Witbeck v. Witbeck.

Witbeck v. Witbeck, 141 So. 871 (La. 1932)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 25, 1932
Docket
No. 30993.
Judges
Brunot
Citations
141 So. 871174 La. 8991932 La. LEXIS 1747

Opinion of the Court — Brunot

BRUNOT, J.

The plaintiff and defendant were married some time prior to 1929. During that year the plaintiff obtained a judgment against her husband decreeing a separation from bed and board, a dissolution and partition of the community of acquets and gains existing between them, and awarding the plaintiff the custody of a minor child, the issue of the marriage.

This suit is based upon the judgment of separation, and is for an absolute divorce. The defendant excepted to the suit upon the ground that the petition does not allege a cause of action. After a hearing thereon, the defendant’s exception was maintained, the suit was dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed from the judgment.

The appellee has not answered the appeal nor made an appearance in this court, but the appellant has filed in the record, and has had the case submitted upon the following formal acquiescence in the judgment appealed from, viz. :

“Now into court, through undersigned counsel, comes Mrs. May B. Witbeck, plaintiff, appellant, and respectfully shows:

“That she concurs in the judgment rendered herein by the First Judicial District Court of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and that she desires that a judgment of affirmance be entered against her, and that the costs of the appeal be taxed against her. Wherefore, she prays that the judgment of the Lower Court be affirmed, at her cost.”

It appears that the appellee was served with a copy of the foregoing acquiescence in the judgment, was given timely notice of the assignment of the case, and has made no objection to the proposed disposal of it.

This is not an application for the withdrawal of an appeal, but one in which the appellant submits the case on the record, and prays for an affirmance of the judgment. Code Prac. art. 901, does not apply to such a case.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11936: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Witbeck v. Witbeck143 So. 712 (La. 1932)
  2. Diamond T. Motor Trucks, Inc. v. Bilich.167 So. 832 (La. Ct. App. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Diamond T. Motor Trucks, Inc. v. Bilich.167 So. 832 (La. Ct. App. 1936)
  2. Witbeck v. Witbeck143 So. 712 (La. 1932)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list