Cochran v. Cochran
Supreme Court of Louisiana
King, J. PPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans. Secondary and parol evidence should not be admitted where an original act of compromise pleaded by a party is shown to have been in his possession, and its loss or absence is not fully accounted for.
Read the full summary
King, J. PPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans. Secondary and parol evidence should not be admitted where an original act of compromise pleaded by a party is shown to have been in his possession, and its loss or absence is not fully accounted for. Baines vs. Higgins, 2 La. 222; Lockhart vs. Jones, 9 Rob. 386; Ticknor vs. Calhoun, 29 An. 278; C. C. 2279, 2280. Where the contents of the original document are to be proved by parol, much stronger proof of the loss will be required. Lavergne vs. Elkins, 17 La. 220. Transactions regulate only the differences which appear clearly to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
The plaintiff sues as an heir of his grandfather to recover an interest in property in defendant’s possession.
He is one of three forced heirs of the succession.
The defendant and her sister were the other heirs.
The sister, Emma Cochran, died in 1889.
By last will and testament the defendant inherited all property left by the sister.
In 1878 plaintiff’s grandmother, authorized by her husband, his grandfather, bought a lot and improvements in New Orleans.
On the face of the papers it was the property of the community existing at the time betw'een…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Succession of TeddlieLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1980
- Tri-State Insurance Co. v. Elmore Labiche Plumbing Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1968