¶1STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶2This is a suit against Robert Reed as curator of Matt Reed, an interdict, asking damages against the curator for malicious prosecution caused *345by statements made by tbe interdict under which plaintiff was arrested and later indicted by the grand jury.
¶3Plaintiff alleges in his petition that Matt Reed was adjudged insane in suit No. 2148 on the docket of the District Court of Rapides parish and that said judgment declared him insane.
¶4Defendant filed an exception of no cause of action.
¶5The exception was tried and sustained and plaintiff appealed.
¶6OPINION
¶7Plaintiff’s allegation that Matt Reed was insane rendered him in law incapable of malice and in order that plaintiff may maintain an action for malicious prosecution three things must concur:
¶81. The suit must have terminated after trial on its merits in favor of the accused.
¶92. The motive of the prosecution must have been malicious.
¶103. The suit must have been instituted without probable cause.
¶11Brown vs. Vittur, 47 La. Ann. 607, 17 South. 193.
¶12Neither of the first two mentioned conditions are alleged in the plaintiff’s petition.
¶13It therefore follows that the exception of no cause of action was properly sustained.
¶14It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.