Case ID: us_127/html/0775-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Me. Justice Miller:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARCHAND v. LIVANDAIS.
    EEEOE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OE LOUISIANA.
    No. 1077.
    Submitted January 4, 1888.
    —Decided April 16, 1888,
    A feme covert was sued in Louisiana to recover upon notes said to have been executed by her with the authority and consent of her husband. The husband was made a party to the suit under the Code, although without interest in the suit. Judgment being given for defendant, the plaintiff sued out a writ of error against the wife only, but serving it on the husband also. On motion by defendant in error to dismiss the writ: Held, that the motion should be denied.
    
      Motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Edga/r II. Farrar and Mr. Ernest B. Eruttschnitt for the motion.
    
      Mr. C. W. Hornor and Mr., W. K Benedict opposing.
   Me. Justice Miller:

A motion is made to dismiss this cause because Charles Lafitte, the husband of the defendant in error, is not named in the writ of error as a party to the proceedings. The judgment was in favor of his wife Josephine, and he was a party authorizing'her in the suit below, according to the forms of the Louisiana law, which require that the husband must be joined with the wife when she sues, whether he has any interest or not; and the plaintiff in error has served a citation on Lafitte, although he was not named in the writ of error. It may be doubtful whether Lafitte is a necessary party in this court, seeing he was not a party to the judgment. If for conformity’s sake he ought to have been brought here to aid his 'wife in the writ of error, the citation to him is sufficient for that purpose. The motion to dismiss the case is overruled.