109 So. 402 | La. | 1925
This case was here before under No. 25327 of our docket (Succession of Damico,
Thereupon we held:
"In a contest for administration of decedent's succession between heirs and alleged widow, who had been divorced from a former husband for adultery with T., it was error to exclude evidence that decedent and T. were the same person; Civ. Code, art.
161 , prohibiting guilty party in divorce from marrying accomplice."
And again:
"In a contest for administration between decedent's widow and his heirs, evidence that the widow had property of decedent in her possession, which immediately after decedent's death disappeared, was admissible to show that the widow was not entitled to administration in preference to another heir, in view of Civ. Code, art. 1043."
And the case was therefore remanded for the admission of the evidence thus excluded.
The widow now moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that same is frivolous, and has been taken merely for delay, because *727 (it is alleged) the heirs offered no proof whatever in support of their charges, whilst the evidence adduced by the widow (it is alleged) shows conclusively that the charges are wholly unfounded.
But otherwise, in civil cases, an appeal lies of right (generally suspensive, though sometimes only devolutive) from all final judgments, and also from such interlocutory judgments as may cause irreparable injury (Code Prac. arts. 565, 566, 575, 578, 580), except in cases tried before a district court, in the country parishes, involving $100 or less (Const. 1921, art. 7, §§ 29, 48, pp. 46, 51).
And in all cases where an appeal lies, such appeal must be granted, and cannot be denied because it is said to be frivolous, or taken merely for delay, or only "to abuse the right of appeal." State ex rel. Duffard v. Recorder, 45 La. Ann. 1299, 14 So. 66.
Cause dismissed, June 4, 1926, by agreement of counsel.