Garnier v. Racvitch

Decision Date07 November 1949
Docket NumberNo. 39010,39010
CitationGarnier v. Racvitch, 43 So.2d 595, 216 La. 241 (La. 1949)
PartiesGARNIER v. RACIVITCH, District Attorney.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Madison, Madison, Files & Shell, Monroe, Claude W. Duke, New Orleans, for appellant.

Robert L. Hickerson, New Orleans, for plaintiffs and appellees.

FRUGE, Justice.

Mrs. Claire Brownell Garnier, who, in a divorce proceeding against her husband, Dr. William V. Garnier, had been awarded custody of their minor daughter, Sally Dean Brownell Garnier, appearing in her own name and as tutrix and adoptive mother of the child, applied for and obtained a judgment on September 18, 1947, changing the name of the daughter to Sally Dean Brownell. On April 8, 1949, Dr. Garnier who neither joined in nor was made a party to this proceeding, became apprised for the first time of the existence of the judgment and appealed devolutively from that portion of the judgment which purported to change the name of his daughter.

Section 1 of Act No. 420 of 1938, under which this suit was brought, provides that if the person desiring to change their name be a minor '* * * the petition shall be signed by the father and mother of said minor or by the survivor in case one of them be dead, and in case the minor has no father or mother living, the petition shall be signed by the tutor or tutrix * * *.'

It is appellant's contention that under the plain language of the act the judgment was a nullity without appellant's joining in the petition. Appellee intends that the act is ambiguous and of doubtful import in that it makes no provision for the situation where the parents are living but divorced. It is suggested that this ambiguity should be clarified by reference to Article 157 of the Civil Code, as amended, which provides that in the event of separation or divorce, the parent in whose custody a child is placed shall of right become natural tutor or tutrix of the child to the same extent and with the same effect as if the other party had died.

We find no ambiguity or uncertainty in Act No. 420 of 1938. The provisions as to who must sign the petition when a minor is involved, vary according to whether (1) Both parents are living; (2) One parent is living and one dead; or (3) Both parents are dead. There is no conceivable situation which would not fall within one of the groups thus set out. The facts of the instant case place it squarely in the first group. The ambiguity which is suggested by appellee is not apparent until Act No. 420 of 1938 is read...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Mark v. Kahn
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 3, 1956
    ...to divorce proceedings. See Clinton v. Morrow, 220 Ark. 377, 247 S.W.2d 1015; Don v. Don, 142 Conn. 309, 114 A.2d 203; Carnier v. Racivitch, 216 La. 241; Matter of Epstein, 121 Misc. 151, 200 N.Y.S. 897; Application of Wittlin, City Ct., 61 N.Y.S.2d 726; Matter of Almosnino, 204 Misc. 53, 1......
  • Pugh v. Pugh
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • November 7, 1949
  • Webber v. Webber
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana
    • July 15, 1964
    ...which the district attorney is required to be made defendant in suits for a change of name. The case of Garnier v. Racivitch (district attorney), 216 La. 241, 43 So.2d 595, is easily distinguishable from this case. The only question there was whether the wife, after divorce, had a right to ......