De Armas v. De Armas
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL APPEAL from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Maurian, J. The facts out of which the questions of law in this case arise, are stated in the opinions infra. The judgment appealed from is void for want of a statement of the reasons on which it is founded. The stat. of 27 March, 1835, is unconstitutional, so far as it purports to be retrospective.
Read the full summary
APPEAL APPEAL from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Maurian, J. The facts out of which the questions of law in this case arise, are stated in the opinions infra. The judgment appealed from is void for want of a statement of the reasons on which it is founded. The stat. of 27 March, 1835, is unconstitutional, so far as it purports to be retrospective. No notification is required by that act of the intention to retract a renunciation of legal rights. urged that the statute approved March 27, 1835, published the 10th of April following, was not promulgated till the 11th of that month.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was pronounced by
Rost, J.
The sole question in this case is, whether the plaintiff retracted a renunciation of her legal rights, made by her in a sale of immovable property effected by her husband, within forty days of the promulgation of the act of the 27th of March, 1835, establishing that limitation for all such renunciations. The act was promulgated on the 10th of April, 1835, and became obligatory on the 11th. Bullard & C.’s Dig. p. 541. The citation, and copy of the petition containing the retraction, were served on the defendants, on the 21st May following. The…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Lott v. HaleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1979
- State v. Alden MillsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1943
- United States v. Nebo Oil Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1951
- Marsh Engineering Inc. v. ParkerLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2004
- United States v. Nebo Oil Co.District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1950
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.