Armant v. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad

41 La. Ann. 1020
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided December 15, 1889·No. No. 10,397·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered hy

Fenner, J.

An exception was filed to the right of plaintiff to stand in judgment as testamentary executor on the grounds that the will under which he was appointed is invalid; that, if invalid, it is not shown that it has not been completely executed; and that, as there are no debts due by the succession, in this State, there is no necessity for an executor or administrator.

Tiie exception does not deny that the plaintiff has been regularly appointed and qualified as executor under the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. Such a decree must be treated as prima facie valid; and even il' it were conceded, argv,mentí gratia, that defendant, a. mere debtor of the succession,- could attack it in this collateral way. yet as the grounds of the attack are matters extraneous to the probate proceeding, the burden of proof would lie on him, and he has offered no evidence whatever on the subject.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Armant v. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad, 41 La. Ann. 1020 (La. 1889).

41 La. Ann. 1020 (Armant v. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Odom v. Buras Contractors, Inc.
346 So. 2d 246 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1977)
STATE BY FURMAN v. Jefferson Lake Sulphur Co.
178 A.2d 329 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1962)
STATE BY PARSONS v. Standard Oil Co.
74 A.2d 565 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1950)
Scott v. New York Life Ins. Co.
16 So. 2d 685 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1944)
Boston & Roxbury Mill Corp. v. Tyndale
218 Mass. 425 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Hubert v. City of New Orleans
40 So. 853 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1906)