Case Name: Alvin R. OLDHAM v. Mrs. Lillian HOOVER et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1962-04-09
Citations: 140 So. 2d 417
Docket Number: No. 5525
Parties: Alvin R. OLDHAM v. Mrs. Lillian HOOVER et al.
Judges: Before LOTTINGER, LANDRY and REID, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 140
Pages: 417–423

Head Matter:
Alvin R. OLDHAM v. Mrs. Lillian HOOVER et al.
No. 5525.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.
April 9, 1962.
Certiorari Denied June 20, 1962.
Rehearing Denied May 16, 1962.
Joel B. Dickinson, Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Seale, Hayes, Smith, Keogh & Franklin, by Joseph F. Keogh, Baton Rouge, for appellees.
Before LOTTINGER, LANDRY and REID, JJ.

Opinion:
REID, Judge.
This is a suit for damages brought by Alvin R. Oldham, individually and on behalf of his minor son, Randy Oldham, against defendants, Mrs. Lillian Hoover, Mrs. Lillian Watts, Mrs. Marvin Ward Donahue, and Mrs. Jessie Lee Forrest doing business as Lakeside Day Nursery, and their liability insurer, American Insurance Company, for the sum of $17,239.90 for personal injuries received by plaintiff's son, Randy Oldham, age 4, sustained when the child tripped and fell over a piece of playground equipment known as a "rockaway", said accident having occurred December 14, 1959.
MOTION TO DISMISS
Subsequent to the appeal in this case the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of proceeding under the pauper's act because the plaintiff and his child were residents and citizens of Albuquerque, New Mexico, subsequent to the filing of the original suit and during trial thereof. The supplemental and amended petition and the order authorizing the prosecution of this suit without the necessity of payment of costs and furnishing bond was filed on February 17, 1961. At this time, according to the allegations of said petition and the verifying affidavit, the plaintiff was a citizen of and domiciled in the State of Louisiana.
Under our law the facts which are the basis for the issuance of an order permitting the prosecution of a suit in forma pauperis are taken as true until the court has an opportunity to reexamine them upon the trial of a rule to traverse. When a judge enters an order permitting a litigant to litigate in forma pauperis, allegation of extreme poverty contained in the application must be taken as true in the absence of a rule to traverse. Singleton v. First National Life Insurance Company, La.App., 157 So. 620.
The defendants did not file a motion to traverse nor have they filed a motion to remand this case to the lower court to permit the filing of a rule to traverse the affidavit of poverty.
Our courts have held that where a devolu-tive appeal is taken in forma pauperis without allowing the appellee sufficient time in which to traverse the affidavits of poverty, the appellate court may, upon timely application therefor, remand the cause to give the appellee the opportunity to do so. See Brewer v. Theole, 186 La. 168, 171 So. 839; Buckley v. Thibodeaux, 181 La. 416, 159 So. 603.
The appellant should have filed a motion to remand this case for the purpose of traversing the affidavits and order permitting the prosecution of this case in forma pauperis. Having failed to do so, he is deemed to have waived his right. It is, therefore, ordered that the motion to dismiss be overruled.