referred presumption in Louisiana

1953Schwab v. Hava, supra; Houghton v. Hall, supra; Cosgrove v. His Creditors, 41 La.Ann. 274 , 6 So. 585 ; Huntington Adm’r v. Legros, 18 La.Ann. 126 . “ ‘It is also held in Houghton v. Hall, that: “The wife, and those claiming through or from her, to overcome the presumption in favor of the community, must establish three crucial facts, Namely: (1) The . parapher^ nality of the funds; (2) the administration thereof separately and apart from her husband; and (3) investment by her.

1951Schwab v. Hava et ux., supra; Houghton v. Hall, et al., supra; Cosgrove v. His Creditors, 41 La.Ann. 274 , 6 So. 585 ; Huntington Adm'r v. Legros, 18 La.Ann. 126 .

1953Schwab v. Hava, supra; Houghton v. Hall, supra; Cosgrove v. His Creditors, 41 La.Ann. 274 , 6 So. 585 ; Huntington Adm’r v. Legros, 18 La.Ann. 126 . “ ‘It is also held in Houghton v. Hall, that: “The wife, and those claiming through or from her, to overcome the presumption in favor of the community, must establish three crucial facts, Namely: (1) The . parapher^ nality of the funds; (2) the administration thereof separately and apart from her husband; and (3) investment by her.

1951Schwab v. Hava et ux., supra; Houghton v. Hall, et al., supra; Cosgrove v. His Creditors, 41 La.Ann. 274 , 6 So. 585 ; Huntington Adm'r v. Legros, 18 La.Ann. 126 .

2017Mack v. Wiley, 07-2344 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/2/08) , 991 So.2d 479, 486 , writ denied, 08-1181 (La. 9/19/08), 992 So.2d 932 .

2017Mack v. Wiley, 07-2344 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/2/08) , 991 So.2d 479, 486 , writ denied, 08-1181 (La. 9/19/08), 992 So.2d 932 .

1959Gosserand v. Monteleone, 1927, 159 La. 316 , 105 So. 356 , 42 A.L.R. 310 ; See Tanner v. Tanner, 1956, 229 La. 399, 407 , 86 So.2d 80, 83 . .

1959Gosserand v. Monteleone, 1927, 159 La. 316 , 105 So. 356 , 42 A.L.R. 310 ; See Tanner v. Tanner, 1956, 229 La. 399, 407 , 86 So.2d 80, 83 . .

1953Shaw v. Hill, 20 La.Ann. 531 , 96 Am.Dec. 420; Gogreve v. Dehon, 41 La.Ann. 244 , 6 So. 31 .” " ‘ “Every marriage contracted in this State, superinduces of right partnership or community of acquets and gains, if .there be no stipulation to the contrary.” Art 2399 of the [LSA-] Civil Code. “ ‘The burden of overcoming the above referred to presumption rests upon the person alleging the separate and/or paraphernal character of the particular property.

1951Schwab v. Hava et ux., supra; Houghton v. Hall, et al., supra; Cosgrove v. His Creditors, 41 La.Ann. 274 , 6 So. 585 ; Huntington Adm'r v. Legros, 18 La.Ann. 126 .

1938In the case of Gershner v. Gulf Refining Co., 171 So. 399 , decided by this court, it was held that the party seeking to recover under the above referred to rule must not know or be in a position to know the causes of the accident for which recovery is sought and the court said: “Res ipsa loquitur doctrine is not applicable where, from facts surrounding accident, both parties had full knowledge of circumstances and nature of accident, and accident might reasonably have been caused by other agencies than those for which defendant is responsible.” Even though the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is

1923The trial court referred the exception to the merits, but sustained it after trial upon the authority of Jones v. City of New Orleans, 143 La. 1074 , 79 South. 865 .

1914It was nevertheless held by the court, in the cited case, that it was reversible error for the trial judge to charge the jury: “You are not bound to consider the testimony of defendant as absolutely true; * * * you are to bear in mind that he speaks in his own behalf, to discharge himself from a criminal accusation, and you are to consider the great temptation which one so situated is under so to speak as to procure an acquittal.” In the course of the opinion, the court referred to an instruction which was the subject of consideration in Johnson v. United States, 157 U. S. 320 , 15 Sup. Ct. 61

1914It was nevertheless held by the court, in the cited case, that it was reversible error for the trial judge to charge the jury: “You are not bound to consider the testimony of defendant as absolutely true; * * * you are to bear in mind that he speaks in his own behalf, to discharge himself from a criminal accusation, and you are to consider the great temptation which one so situated is under so to speak as to procure an acquittal.” In the course of the opinion, the court referred to an instruction which was the subject of consideration in Johnson v. United States, 157 U. S. 320 , 15 Sup. Ct. 61