Case Name: STEPHENS v. DUCKETT et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1904-02-15
Citations: 111 La. 979
Docket Number: No. 14,933
Parties: STEPHENS v. DUCKETT et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 979–981

Head Matter:
(36 South. 89.)
No. 14,933.
STEPHENS v. DUCKETT et al.
(Feb. 15, 1904.)
WILLS—DISINHERISON—REHEARING—REVIEW.
1. A recital that the heir married without the consent of the testator, and is therefore disinherited, sufficiently expresses the cause of the disinherison. The minority of the heir need not be mentioned.
On Application for Rehearing.
2. Points not made on the original hearing will not, as a rule, be considered on an application for a rehearing. 1 Hennen’s Digest, pp. 107, 108.
3. A demand not embraced in the pleadings in the court a qua cannot be urged on appeal. Airey v. Okolona Sav. Inst., 33 La. Ann. 1346.
4. Minority is implied when the cause of disinherison set forth in the testament is applicable only to minors.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Twenty-Third Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary; Albert Campbell Allen, Judge.
Action by Alice T. Stephens against Gordon Duckett and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Philip H. Mentz and Charles Frank Borah, for appellant. Foster, Milling, Godchaux & Sanders, for apx>ellees executors and others. Walter Richards Gates, curator ad hoc of appellee Frances Regina Stephens.

Opinion:
PROVOSTX, J.
Plaintiff contests the will of Mrs. Fannie C. Harding, deceased, but she is without interest, and without standing to do so, unless the following clause is insufficient in law to express the intention of the testatrix to disinherit her, to wit:
"To my adopted daughter, Alice Talbot Be-miss, who so deeply grieved and offended me by her elopement and marriage with Mr. J. D. Stephens against my consent, I bequeath my house and buildings and land in tbe village of Baldwin. My personal effects in the house I do will that she receive no more of my estate than I have herein bequeathed her."
Plaintiff says that under article 1624, Giv. Code, "the testator must express in his will for what reasons he disinherits his forced heir," and that, therefore, when the cause is that the heir has married against the consent of the testator, while a minor, the cause of the disinherison is not expressed in the will, unless along with the fact of the marriage against consent there is expressly mentioned the fact of the minority.
We see no force in this contention. Disinherison is allowed because of some reprehensible conduct of tbe heir, and his minority is no x>ai't of his conduct. If the conduct complained of is recited, the canse is expressed, and the law is satisfied. The object the law has In view is that the cause of the disinherison be not left doubtful. There could be no other purpose. This purpose is fully accomplished when the statement is made, as in the instant case, that the heir has married against the consent of the testator. The minority is a fact to be proved dehors the will.
The curator ad hoc would have this court amend the judgment so as to tax his fee as costs against the succession, but tbe judgment cannot be amended between axipellees.
Tbe judgment appealed from is set aside, and tbe suit dismissed, at tbe cost of xilaintiff in both courts.