Bolton v. Rouss

• Decision Date: 02 December 1918
• Docket Number: 21674
• Citation: 80 So. 226,144 La. 134
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: BOLTON v. ROUSS et al

80 So. 226

144 La. 134

BOLTON v. ROUSS et al

No. 21674

Supreme Court of Louisiana

December 2, 1918

Pujo &amp Williamson, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

Plauche & Mayeux, of Lake Charles, for appellees.

OPINION

O'NIELL, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his suit for want of a valid citation of one of the defendants, Peter W Rouss, the only defendant having an interest in the matter. Rouss is a resident of New York and was not in Louisiana when the suit was filed. Service of citation was made by delivering to the defendant's agent, E. A. Heard, a copy of the petition and citation addressed to the defendant Rouss. The agent, Heard, being employed as assistant credit man in the store of Rouss in New York, also resided in New York; and he had come to Louisiana to attend to collecting a large debt due to Rouss by the Bolton Company, Limited, a Louisiana corporation, of which the plaintiff in this suit was the president. The authority of the agent was expressed in a power of attorney, as follows, viz.:

'To Whom it may Concern: This is to advise that Mr. E. A. Heard represents my interest and has full authority to act for me in the matter of the Bolton Company, Ltd., of Lake Charles, La.

'Respectfully,

[Signed] P. W. Rouss.'

The object of this suit is to have decreed null and void, for want of a consideration, assignments made to Rouss, by the plaintiff, in New York, of policies of insurance on his life payable to his estate. The evidence taken on the trial of the exception to the suit shows that, although it is recited in the assignments that they were made for one dollar and other valuable considerations, receipt of which was thereby acknowledged, the assignments were, in truth, made for no other consideration or purpose than to secure the payment of the debt due by the Bolton Company to Rouss.

The plaintiff prayed in his petition that the insurance companies, domiciled in New York, should be cited as defendants, by service upon their agent in Louisiana, and be enjoined and prohibited from recognizing Rouss as the transferee of the insurance policies, and from paying loaning or advancing him any money due or to become due to the beneficiary under the policies. The insurance companies were cited, by service upon their agent in Louisiana; and one of them answered, without having urged any exception to the suit, disclaiming any interest in the controversy. It does not appear that the other insurance company has made an appearance in the case. It is apparent, however, and seems to be conceded, that, as neither of the insurance companies guaranteed the validity of either of the...