Calderon v. Martin

Decision Date02 May 1898
Docket Number12,763
Citation50 La.Ann. 1153,23 So. 909
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court
PartiesMRS. FLORENCIA CALDERON v. AUGUSTINE MARTIN, HER HUSBAND

Argued April 22, 1898.

Rehearing refused June 28, 1898.

APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.

H. N Gautier and L. P. Paquet, for Plaintiff, Appellee.

A. A Ker, H. E. Upton, Lazarus, Moore & Luce, for Defendant Appellant.

OPINION

BREAUX, J.

The wife brought this suit for the interdiction of her husband, on the ground of mental unsoundness, rendering him incapable of properly administering his estate and of taking care of his person. The father of the defendant died testate in 1893, leaving his property, valuable at his death, to his widow and his only offspring, the defendant. To the former he bequeathed one-third of his succession, with the usufruct of the remainder, and to the latter two-thirds, subject to the mother's usufruct.

In 1894 plaintiff was married to the defendant. The evidence discloses that his mental faculties were always weak. Of late years he has become quite timid, to a degree that he is unwilling to leave his home alone. When he is away from his home he is afraid to return without having some one with him. At his home he shows by his acts and utterances that he is weak and almost entirely devoid of all will power. He is unable to correctly calculate or to multiply simple numbers. His utterances are difficult and not easily understood. These are the salient facts stated by the witnesses for plaintiff. About an equal number of witnesses for defendant expressed a different view in regard to his mental condition. We infer that all the witnesses agreed in the opinion that the defendant is frequently abnormally nervous, and that he is unable to earn a livelihood, but those for the defendant evidently did not think that his condition was such as to warrant his interdiction. With reference to the property left by the father, which was all he had, it was wasted, save a small amount. His mother had not chosen to adhere closely to the limitation manifestly desired by the father and testator in regard to the disposition of the property bequeathed. The mother and the son together have freely expended amounts inherited, so that at this time a large estate is of little value. The District Judge heard the witnesses. He heard the defendant testify and propounded a number of questions to him. Judgment was rendered holding that the defendant was incapable of performing validly any of the acts which a person of sound mind could perform and decreeing his interdiction. The questions before us for our determination are brought upon appeal of the defendant from the judgment of interdiction. In our opinion, defendant's sad condition comes within the grasp of the law which authorizes the interdiction of one who, because of mental incapacity, is unable to properly protect himself and manage his estate. The defendant can not, in his present state of mental weakness, transact the customary business of life. He is not, in the strict senee of the word, absolutely insane, but he is none the less, in our view, as much in need of protection as if his case were one strictly of the most pronounced type of insanity.

The expenditure of his patrimony and his total failure, in a satisfactory manner, to account as a witness for the loss, is a direct manifestation of most lamentable mental weakness. By his incoherence in answer to questions he made it evident that he did not really know what had become of his property.

The testimony taken as a whole indicates, in our opinion, a derangement of the mind's functions. We do not assert for an instant that the defendant is a confirmed lunatic. Alienists have asserted, and we think correctly, that those designated as imbeciles in law may ordinarily make use of their senses; may have ideas, memory and some judgment, and conduct themselves more or less properly at times; they may read, articulate words with more or less clearness, even...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Shapter v. Pillar
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1900
    ... ... interests, the statute is satisfied. Ridgeway v. Darwin, 8 ... Ves. 65; McElroy's Case, 6 Watts & S. 451; Calderon v ... Martin, 50 La. Ann. 1153, 23 So. 909; Nailor's Children ... v. Nailor, 4 Dana, 339; Gray v. Obear, 59 Ga. 675; McCammon ... v. Cunningham, ... ...
  • Macdonald v. La Salle Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 20, 1957
    ...of Wentz, 76 Conn. 405, 56 A. 625; Shapter v. Pillar, 28 Colo. 209, 63 P. 302; In re Barker, 2 Johns Ch., N.Y., 232; Calderon v. Martin, 50 La.Ann. 1153, 23 So. 909. The statute under consideration adopts this test also, since it provides expressly that before 'mental or physical incapacity......
  • Adams, In re
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • April 8, 1968
    ...an actual necessity for the interdiction. Francke v. His Wife, 29 La.Ann. 302; Interdiction of Watson, 31 La.Ann. 757; Calderon v. Martin, 50 La.Ann. 1153, 23 So. 909; Andrus v. Andrus, 136 La. 824, 67 So. 895; Pons v. Pons, 137 La. 25, 68 So. 201; In re Corbin, 187 La. 968, 175 So. 636; In......
  • City of New Orleans v. Board of Fire Commissioners
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1898

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT