Case Name: KELLY v. KELLY
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1912-06-13
Citations: 131 La. 1024
Docket Number: No. 19,187
Parties: KELLY v. KELLY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 1023–1033

Head Matter:
(60 South. 671.)
No. 19,187.
KELLY v. KELLY.
(June 13, 1912.
On Rehearing Jan. 20, 1913.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Husband and Wife (§ 272*) — Community Pbopebty — Actions—Defenses.
The defendant, sued by his divorced wife for certain real estate in his possession, claim ed by her under an act purporting to be a giving in payment in satisfaction of her paraphernal claims, may plead and prove by parol that the act of transfer, as a contract, was without consideration, and, as a donation, left him without the means of subsistence, and may further plead and prove that the real estate belonged to the community, and that the plaintiff was indebted unto the community in certain amounts for moneys and other assets which inured) to the benefit of her separate estate.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 1003-1007; Dec. Dig. § 272.*]
2. Husband and Wife (§ 52*) — Community Property — Contracts Between — Varidity.
Sales or transfers between the spouses are prohibited except in the three cases specified in article 2446 of the Civil Code. All other sales or transfers between the husband and wife are null and void, and the nullity may be invoked by the spouses, as well as by their heirs and creditors.
[Ed.- Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 264-269; Dec. Dig. § 52.*]
3. Gifts (§ 6*) — Validity —Retention of Means of Subsistence — Donations. _ •
_ Donations omnium bonorum are prohibited by article 1497 of the Civil Code. If the donor does not reserve to himself enough for subsistence, the donation is null for the whole.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Gifts, Cent. Dig. §§ 11, 13; Dec. Dig. § 6.*]
4. Contracts (§ 105*) — Equitable Estoppel —Grounds.
The doctrine of estoppel has no application to conventions which derogate from the force of laws made for the preservation of public order or good morals, and what is done in contravention of a prohibitory law is void, although the nullity be not formally directed. Oiv. Code, arts. 11, 12.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 478, 480-497; Dec. Dig. § 105.*]
5. Husband and Wife (§ 272*) — Community Property — What Constitutes.
It is' well settled that the interest of the wife in the community is residuary, being one-half of what remains after the payment of debts due by the community and a settlement of accounts between the community and the spouses. The wife is accountable for community funds employed by her in purchasing property, in her own name, in another state.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 1003-1007; Dec. Dig. § 272.*]
6. Husband and Wife (§ 116*) — Separate Property of Wife — Insurance,
Where a husband insures his life in favor of his wife, the policy becomes her separate property, and premiums paid by the husband will be considered as gifts to the wife.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Husband and Wife, Cent. Dig. §§ 398, 413-417; Dec. Dig. § 116.*]
7. Gifts (§ 41*) — Actions to Annul — Prescription — Donations.
An action to annul a donation for acts of ingratitude must be instituted within a year from the date of the acts. Civ. Code, arts. 15, 61.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Gifts, Cent. Dig. § 20; Dec. Dig. § 41.*]
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Thos. C. W. Ellis, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Mary Kelly against Dr. Hugh Kelly. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and rendered.
Emile Pomes and James J. MeLoughlin, both of New Orleans, for appellant. John Bassich, Jr., and Thomas M. Gill, Sr., both of New Orleans, for appellee.

Opinion:
PRO VO STY, J.
Plaintiff alleges that her divorced husband has wrongfully taken possession of an improved lot of ground belonging to her, and that he refuses to give same up to her, and she prays that he be ordered to do so. The lot in question is No. 21, fronting on Dryades street, in square bounded by Dryades, Jackson, Laurent, and Josephine streets in this .city.
Defendant denies that plaintiff is owner. He alleges that the property belongs to him; that it is true that he at one time executed a notarial act purporting to make a transfer of it to the plaintiff in payment of a debt said to be due her; but that this purported transfer was an absolute nullity by reason of the fact that she was then his wife and he was not indebted to her in any amount whatever.
The evidence clearly shows that the transfer was without consideration. Defendant positively so testifies, and plaintiff can hardly be said to deny it, when her testimony is read as a whole and analyzedt She does not pretend to have had, any paraphernal property except from gifts of money made to her by her father, and her father is shown to have lived and died without means. The learned trial judge found that the transfer had been made without consideration and decreed this lot to be the joint property of plaintiff and defendant, as having been acquired during the existence of their marriage.
The defendant, in his answer, sets up a number of reconventional demands, based upon matters entirely disconnected with plaintiff's demand. On the trial plaintiff objected to any proof being allowed to be made of these demands on the ground that they were based upon matters disconnected with the main demand, and that both parties to the suit were residents of the parish of Orleans. This objection should have been sustained and the demands disregarded. The court, however, heard the evidence and maintained the demands and decreed a partition between the parties. The appeal is by plaintiff.
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment herein, read and signed June 26, 1911, be affirmed in so far as it decrees the joint ownership of said lot 21, but that it be in all other respects set aside, and that the reconventional demands of the defendant be rejected as in case of nonsuit, and, that defendant pay the costs of both courts.