TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Succession of Navarro

Succession of J. B. Navarro

Succession of Navarro, 24 La. Ann. 298 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1872
Docket
No. 2939
Judges
Ludelíng
Citations
24 La. Ann. 298
Headnotes
A marriage which, has been. declared to be mill on account of an impediment in tho way of one of tho spouses, lias nevertheless its civil fruits as to the other party who was in good faith and contracted the marriage in ignorance of tho disabilities which affected tho •other, and also in favor of the issue of such marriage. C. 0.118. Good faith in contracts being always presumed, the burden of‘proof falls upon the party who alleges fraud or bad faith. A wife who contracted a marriage with her husband in Louisiana in good faith, can not, therefore, be deprived of her interest in the succession of her husband, because it is afterward established that her husband at the time was tho husband of a woman in tho kingdom of Italy, by a marriage which took place prior to her marriage in Louisiana, nor can her children, tho issue of such marriage, be deprived of tbeir inheritance from their father’s estate on that account.
Summary
A PPEAL from the Second District Court, parish of Orleans. JDuvigneemd, J.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ludelíng

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Ludelíng, C. J.

This is a contest for the property of Jean Baptiste Navarro, who was a bigamist. He was married in his native country, 'Italy, in August, 3 833, to Marie Massucco. He came to Louisiana in 1841, and in 1851 he was married by a justice of the peace in Louisiana, to Anastasio Lafrance, notwithstanding his first marriage was undissolved.

*299 Anastasie died on or about tlie twelfth of January, 1869, and J. B. Navarro died on the twenty-first day of the same month and year. A son, Paul Augustin Navarro, issue of their marriage, survived them.

Marie Massuceo died on the twenty-third of October, 1870. She left a will, -whereby she constituted her brother Phillip Massuceo and her- sister Anna Maria Massuceo, wife of J. B. Taggiasco, her heirs and universal legatees.

Navarro left property here inventoried at §20,759, and three parties now before the court present their claims to it.

Marie Massuceo claims one-half of it as surviving widow in community, and her claim seems to be conceded to her in this court by both of the other parties.

Paul Augustin Navarro, by his tutor, claims tlie other half of the community, as the legitimate son of Jean Baptiste Navarro, while Mrs. Louisa Navarro Anselmi, sister of the said J. B. Navarro, claimed to be entitled to his entire succession, on the ground that he loft neither ascendants nor legitimate descendants, nor collateral relatives besides herself. The court a qua decided that each of the two wives was entitled to one-half of the community, and rejected the demand of Mrs. Anselmi. Prom that judgment she alone has appealed.

The only question for decision is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Paul Augustin Navarro, the issue of the putative marriage.

- The Civil Code provides that “ The marriage, which has been declared null, produces nevertheless its civil effects as it relates to the parties and their children, if it has been contracted in good faith.” Art. 117. “If only one of the parties acted in good faith, the marriage produces its civil effects only in his or her favor, and in favor of the child born of the marriage.” Art. 118.

Good faith in contracts is always presumed; the onus of proof is on him who alleges fraud or bad faith. Rogron, Code Napoleon, expliqué liv. 1 Art. 201 Marcadé Droit Civil, vol. 1 tot. v. du marriage page 553.

After a careful examination of the evidence, we are satisfied that Anastasie acted in good faith in contracting the marriage with Navarro. Nothing in the record shows that she had ever heard, before her marriage, of his having a living wifo in Europe. The justice of tlie peace, who performed tlie ceremony of marriage, and other male witnesses, who had lived a long time in the place where the marriage took place, had never heard of his having a living wifo in Europe, and they believed him to be an unmarried man.

It seemed to bo conceded in argument that it was not proved that she lenew before her marriage that he had a wife in Europe, but it is insisted that this knowledge was communicated to her after the marriage, but before the conception of the child.

The only evidence on this subject is the testimony of the claimant, *300 Mrs. Anselmi, herself. She says “In conversation with my brother’s wife, during my visit to the parish of Plaquemines, and after the marriage, my sister-in-law, Anastasia Lafranee, told me that she did not recognize myself and my mother as related to her. That her only relatives were on her mother’s and father’s side. I then stated to her: “You said we are not related to you, because you are aware that my brother is married in Italy, and if his wife comes here, this would not be at all agreeable to you.” She then answered that she did not care. She says this conversation occurred “ before the birth of the child is-due from the marriage of my brother with Anastasio Lafranee.” She can not fix the date of this conversation. She can not state whether it was a year or not after the marriage, nor how long after the marriage before the child was born.

Her memory is bad, and her testimony is vague and unsatisfactory.

If we were to give full credence to all she says, the evidence would fail to establish imoioledge in Anastasie that her husband had another wife living in Europe. It certainly does not prove that such knowledge was acquired before the conception of the child. 3 N. S., 438, Clendenning v. Clendenning ; 1 An., 105, Patton v. cities of Philadelphia and New Orleans ; 7 An., 252, Hubbell v. Inskatein et al.; 15 An., 137, Abston v. Abston.

We see no reason for disturbing the judgment appealed from.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed, with costs of appeal.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →
1915: 21916: 11921: 11923: 11925: 11935: 11938: 11949: 11950: 11951: 11955: 11956: 11957: 11958: 11962: 11963: 11965: 21971: 11972: 11974: 11975: 219152026peak 1915 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. King v. Cancienne316 So. 2d 366 (La. 1975)
  2. Succession of Marinoni164 So. 797 (La. 1935)
  3. Succession of Fuselier325 So. 2d 296 (La. Ct. App. 1975)
  4. Funderburk v. Funderburk38 So. 2d 502 (La. 1949)
  5. Prince v. Hopson89 So. 2d 128 (La. 1956)
  6. Waterhouse v. Star Land Co.71 So. 358 (La. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Succession of Fuselier325 So. 2d 296 (La. Ct. App. 1975)
  2. King v. Cancienne316 So. 2d 366 (La. 1975)
  3. Cortes v. Fleming307 So. 2d 611 (La. 1974)
  4. Eddy v. Eddy271 So. 2d 333 (La. Ct. App. 1972)
  5. Babineaux v. Pernie-Bailey Drilling Co.250 So. 2d 224 (La. Ct. App. 1971) · Concurrence
  6. Jones v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of US173 So. 2d 373 (La. Ct. App. 1965)

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