Waterhouse v. Star Land Co., Limited
| Decision Date | 06 March 1916 |
| Docket Number | 21475 |
| Citation | 71 So. 358,139 La. 177 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | WATERHOUSE v. STAR LAND CO., Limited, et al |
Rehearing Denied April 3, 1916
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Where the trial and final disposition of an exception will put an end to a case, it should be disposed of before going into the trial on its merits.
One without a pecuniary interest has no judicial standing in the courts.
Where a second marriage has been entered into by a husband during the existence of a previous marriage, and the second wife is in good faith and is ignorant of the existence of the prior marriage, the property acquired by the husband during the existence of the second marriage will be divided between his two wives; and the children of both or either of the marriages are not interested in such property.
Dart Kernan & Dart, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Wm. Winans Wall, of New Orleans, for appellees.
Plaintiff, in her capacity as natural tutrix of the minor Stanislaus John Arthur Waterhouse, alleged that he is the sole heir of his father, John Edward Waterhouse, who in turn had inherited from his father, John Arthur Waterhouse, a share and interest in the defendant company, which was owned by John Arthur Waterhouse at the time of his death, and, in addition thereto, that the said John Edward Waterhouse was the owner of ten shares of stock, of the par value of $ 100 each, of the capital stock of the defendant company. She charges that Mrs. Mary A. Waterhouse, the widow of John Arthur Waterhouse, and their son, James C. Waterhouse, usurped and assumed, without election or appointment, the positions of president and secretary-treasurer, respectively, and members of the board of directors of the said company, and that they have done certain things set forth in the petition which were illegal and fraudulent, with the view to defraud the corporation and minority stockholders thereof; further, that said officers and directors have jeopardized and are jeopardizing the rights of the minority stockholders, and that they are grossly mismanaging the business of the said corporation, and committing acts ultra vires, and are wasting, misusing, and misapplying the property and funds of the corporation. And she prays that the defendant company, together with Mrs. Mary A. Waterhouse, its president, James G. Waterhouse, the secretary-treasurer, and these same persons as acting members of the board of directors of said corporation, be cited, and for judgment against said persons for the value of the property of the corporation which has been disposed of by them, and that they be dismissed from the offices occupied by them. And she further asks that the defendant corporation show cause why a receiver should not be appointed for it, and that a receiver be appointed thereto.
The three defendants made separate appearances, and for cause why a receiver should not be appointed excepted:
'That the late John E. Waterhouse at the time of death owned no stock whatsoever in the Star Land Company, Limited, defendant herein.
'That at the time of the marriage between John A. Waterhouse, deceased, and exceptor (Mrs. Mary Waterhouse), said John A. Waterhouse, deceased, had no property whatsoever; that all of the property owned by the said John A. Waterhouse, deceased, and in his possession, or in the possession of others for him, at the time of his death, was acquired subsequent to the marriage between exceptor and said John A. Waterhouse, deceased; that at the time of the marriage of the said John A. Waterhouse, deceased, to exceptor, he had a wife to whom he was legally married living; that at the time of said marriage exceptor was ignorant of said previous marriage of said John A. Waterhouse, deceased, and remained ignorant of said marriage up to the time of his death; that all of the property acquired by the said John A. Waterhouse, deceased, after his said marriage to said exceptor belonged to his two wives, and at the time of his death he owned no property whatsoever.
'That for the reasons set forth the said minor, Stanislaus John Arthur Waterhouse, is without any interest whatsoever in the capital of the stock of the Star Land Company, Limited, and is not a creditor of the Star Land Company, Limited, and is absolutely without interest to prosecute this suit and stand in judgment herein.'
Two days after filing the exceptions by the several defendants, all of which were to the same effect, the defendants answered severally, after reserving all of their rights under their exceptions, and without in any wise abandoning the same, but insisting thereon, denying the allegations of plaintiff's petition. The defendants were ordered to show cause April 19, 1915, why a receiver should not be appointed to take charge of the affairs of the corporation. The record fails to show what was done on that day; but April 28, 1915, the minutes show that the exceptions to the petition and the rule to appoint a receiver were taken up, heard, and submitted. On that day the trial judge ruled:
'The court will hear evidence upon the exceptions, and, if it finds that the plaintiff, John E. Waterhouse, has an interest, either as a stockholder or an heir, will then go on and try the balance of the case; of course, if he has no interest, that is the end of the case.
'To which ruling of the court counsel for plaintiff reserves a bill of exceptions.'
The bill is without merit. If plaintiff had no pecuniary interest in the defendant company, it would have been idle on the part of the court to have heard testimony on the merits of the cause.
A similar point was presented in the case of Quaker Realty Co. v. Labasse, 131, La. 996, 60 So. 661, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1073. It was there held that a defendant had no standing to provoke judicial inquiry into a matter in which he had no pecuniary interest, saying:
On her brief plaintiff complains that she was prevented from offering evidence by the ruling of the court on the trial of these exceptions; but this is clearly not the case, for the record shows that evidence was offered by the plaintiff, and the trial of the exceptions was closed with the remark, by counsel:
'That is all I have to offer on this matter now.'
It does not appear that plaintiff alleged surprise on going to trial on the exceptions, or that a continuance was asked for, or that he asked for time to produce further testimony. The issue had been tendered some time in advance of the calling of the case for trial, and both parties had announced themselves ready for trial. If plaintiff had evidence which might have been successfully opposed to the evidence offered by the defendant on the trial of the exceptions, such evidence was then in court, or should have been there, if she expected to go to trial on the merits of the cause.
The ruling of the court was correct.
As to the ten shares of stock claimed by plaintiff to have been owned by her deceased husband, John Edward Waterhouse, the evidence is positive that the said John Edward Waterhouse sold said shares of stock to his mother in the year 1912, and that she paid him $ 500 for the same. The evidence of the defendant Mrs. Waterhouse to such effect is corroborated by her son, the other defendant, James E. Waterhouse; and it is further corroborated by the possession of the certificate of stock for the ten shares by the defendant Mrs. Mary A. Waterhouse.
As to that portion of the stock which had been owned by the grandfather, John A. Waterhouse, and said to have been inherited in part by his grandson, the minor ward of plaintiff, the evidence shows that all the property which John A. Waterhouse possessed was acquired...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parish of Jefferson v. Texas Co.
... ... to remove clouds from title to strip of land. Judgment for ... plaintiff, and defendants appeal ... the land itself, or should have limited its demand to a right ... of way, or servitude ... " ... enforced by this court in a very large number of ... See Waterhouse v. Star Land Co., 139 La. 177, 71 So ... 358; Ideal Savings & ... ...
-
Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill
...terminating a suit brought by one without legal interest to assert it. Reporter's Comment (b) 5, LSA-CCP. art. 927; Waterhouse v. Star Land Co., 139 La. 177, 71 So. 358; McMahon, Parties Litigant in Louisiana,11 Tul.L.Rev. 527, 528--32 (1937); McMahon, The Exception of No Cause of Action in......
-
Chrysler Corp. v. City of New Orleans, 46021
...Losavio Realty Co., 212 La. 23, 31 So.2d 412; Ideal Savings & Homestead Ass'n v. Scott, 181 La. 978, 160 So. 783; Waterhouse v. Star Land Co., Ltd., 139 La. 177, 71 So. 358; Quaker Realty Co. v. Labasse, 131 La. 996, 60 So. 661; Succession of Vicknair, La.App., 126 So.2d 680; Orr v. Walker,......
-
Prince v. Hopson
...B. Hopson, legitimate child of the first marriage, and Clementine Prince, putative wife of James Brough. In Waterhouse v. Star Land Co., Ltd., 139 La. 177, 71 So. 358, 360, this court 'It is a fixed rule of property in the state of Louisiana that property which has been earned during the ex......
-
§ 2.03 Establishing a Valid Marriage
...See de Funiak and Vaughn, Principles of Community Property, § 56 (2d ed. 1971).[109] See Waterhouse v. Star Land Co., 139 La. 171, 71 So. 358 (1916).[110] See Prince v. Hopson, 230 La. 575, 89 So.2d 128 (1956). [111] See Brennfleck v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 3 Cal. App.3d 666,......