TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Grimes v. Posecai

Grimes v. Posecai.

Grimes v. Posecai, 142 So. 703 (La. 1932)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 23, 1932
Docket
No. 31522.
Judges
Brunot
Citations
142 So. 703175 La. 11932 La. LEXIS 1779

Opinion of the Court — Brunot

BRUNOT, J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for a separation from bed and board. The defendant, in her answer to the suit, reconvened and prayed for alimony pendente lite. Alimony was awarded the defendant, in the sum of *3 $50 per month, and the plaintiff appealed from that judgment.

The plaintiff is an employee of the New Orleans Fire Department. His salary is $157 per month. The plaintiff testified that, after the deductions for pension dues, insurance, firemen’s charitable association, burial of members, and floral designs, his net salary is $139 per month, and that he is burdened with exceptional features which bring him within the rule announced in Abrams v. Rosenthal, 153 La. 459 , 96 So. 32 , and, for that reason, the award of $50 per month as alimony is excessive.

The award of alimony during the pendency of the suit is made under G. O. art. 148, and it rests in the discretion of the trial judge. It is not a final judgment, but one which, at any time, is open to re-examination and change by the trial judge as changed conditions and circumstances may warrant. On appeal from such a judgment, it must appear that the trial judge acted 'arbitrarily in the matter, otherwise this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge, acting within his discretionary powers. Counsel for the appellant seem to recognize this rule for they say:

“Appellant, by rule, sought a reduction of alimony since this appeal * * *, which was wrongfully continued indefinitely by the trial judge because of this appeal.”

Whether or not the action of the trial judge in indefinitely continuing the said rule was proper or legal is a matter which is not now before us. It will be our duty to consider it when it is presented in an application for a writ of mandamus.

For the reasons assigned, 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.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1933: 11934: 11935: 21942: 11945: 11963: 11964: 11967: 11971: 11979: 119332026peak 1935 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dauterive v. Sternfels164 So. 349 (La. Ct. App. 1935)
  2. McMath v. Masters198 So. 2d 734 (La. Ct. App. 1967)
  3. Colby v. Colby7 So. 2d 924 (La. 1942)
  4. Shipp v. Shipp158 So. 5 (La. 1934)
  5. Cassagne v. Cassagne22 So. 2d 559 (La. 1945)
  6. French v. Wolf160 So. 396 (La. 1935)

Most recent

  1. Billiot v. Rivere378 So. 2d 512 (La. Ct. App. 1979)
  2. Jones v. Jones248 So. 2d 842 (La. Ct. App. 1971)
  3. McMath v. Masters198 So. 2d 734 (La. Ct. App. 1967)
  4. Cordaro v. Cordaro168 So. 2d 886 (La. Ct. App. 1964)
  5. Brown v. Dauzat157 So. 2d 570 (La. Ct. App. 1963)
  6. Cassagne v. Cassagne22 So. 2d 559 (La. 1945)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Abrams v. Rosenthal, 96 So. 32 (La. 1923) 21

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