Submersible
New Member
I just lost the long explanatory post I wrote since I'm new and it contained an external link.
So here's the skinny.
The definition of "interdiction" contradicts itself and I've spend several hours looking for additional information about the code/law/article referred to in the latter with no success.
2. Interdictions are of two kinds, voluntary or judicial. The first is usually executed in the form of an obligation by which the obligor binds himself to do no act which may affect his estate without the consent of certain friends or other persons therein mentioned. The latter, or judicial interdiction, is imposed by a sentence of a competent tribunal, which disqualifies the party on account of imbecility, madness, or prodigality, and deprives the person interdicted of the right to manage his affairs and receive the rents and profits of his estate.
13.-413. Interdiction is not allowed on account of profligacy or prodigality. Vide Ray's Med. Jur. chap. 25; 1 Hagg. Eccl. Rep. 401; Committee; Habitual Drunkard
One line sais prodigality can result in a person being stripped of their rights, then later it states that imposing interdiction is not even allowed becase of prodigality.
I'll be glad with a link or two if you can set me on the right path.
TIA !
Scott
So here's the skinny.
The definition of "interdiction" contradicts itself and I've spend several hours looking for additional information about the code/law/article referred to in the latter with no success.
2. Interdictions are of two kinds, voluntary or judicial. The first is usually executed in the form of an obligation by which the obligor binds himself to do no act which may affect his estate without the consent of certain friends or other persons therein mentioned. The latter, or judicial interdiction, is imposed by a sentence of a competent tribunal, which disqualifies the party on account of imbecility, madness, or prodigality, and deprives the person interdicted of the right to manage his affairs and receive the rents and profits of his estate.
13.-413. Interdiction is not allowed on account of profligacy or prodigality. Vide Ray's Med. Jur. chap. 25; 1 Hagg. Eccl. Rep. 401; Committee; Habitual Drunkard
One line sais prodigality can result in a person being stripped of their rights, then later it states that imposing interdiction is not even allowed becase of prodigality.
I'll be glad with a link or two if you can set me on the right path.
TIA !
Scott
Last edited:
