Case ID: la-app_4/html/0344-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "REYNOLDS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 2669
    Second Circuit
    BEAUBEAUF v. REED
    (June 2, 1926. Opinion and Decree.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
    1. Louisiana Digest — Interdiction and Interdicts — Par. 18.
    The curator of an insane person will not be held responsible in damages for the statements of the interdict made to an officer of the law or to a grand jury.
    Appeal from the Ninth Judicial District Court of Louisiana, Parish of Rapides. Hon. R. C. Culpepper, Judge.
    Action hy Jervais Beaubeauf against Robert Reed, curator of Matt Reed.
    There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    T. F. Hunter, of Alexandria, attorney for plaintiff, appellant.
    
      G. J. Ginsburg, of Alexandria, attorney for defendant, appellee.
   STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REYNOLDS, J.

This is a suit against Robert Reed as curator of Matt Reed, an interdict, asking damages against the curator for malicious prosecution caused by statements made by tbe interdict under which plaintiff was arrested and later indicted by the grand jury.

Plaintiff alleges in his petition that Matt Reed was adjudged insane in suit No. 2148 on the docket of the District Court of Rapides parish and that said judgment declared him insane.

Defendant filed an exception of no cause of action.

The exception was tried and sustained and plaintiff appealed.

OPINION

Plaintiff’s allegation that Matt Reed was insane rendered him in law incapable of malice and in order that plaintiff may maintain an action for malicious prosecution three things must concur:

1. The suit must have terminated after trial on its merits in favor of the accused.

2. The motive of the prosecution must have been malicious.

3. The suit must have been instituted without probable cause.

Brown vs. Vittur, 47 La. Ann. 607, 17 South. 193.

Neither of the first two mentioned conditions are alleged in the plaintiff’s petition.

It therefore follows that the exception of no cause of action was properly sustained.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.