In re Nereaux's Estate

36 So. 594, 112 La. 572, 1904 La. LEXIS 439
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedApril 25, 1904
DocketNo. 15,083
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 36 So. 594 (In re Nereaux's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Nereaux's Estate, 36 So. 594, 112 La. 572, 1904 La. LEXIS 439 (La. 1904).

Opinion

MONROE, J.

Homer Nereaux died in October, 1903, intestate and -without issue, and the application of his widow in community to be appointed administratrix of his estate was opposed by Norbert Nereaux, who alleges that he is the brother and nearest heir of the decedent. To this the widow answers, denying the alleged filiation, and the opposition was tried upon the issue so made and decided adversely to the opponent, who has appealed.

The evidence shows that a good many years before the Civil War Theodule Pruett and Nancy Madden were living in Iberville parish as man and wife; that Nancy Madden left Pruett, and thereafter lived with Edmond Nereaux as his wife; and that Homer Nereaux, the decedent, and another son, were born of that connection during the life of Pruett. It further shows that Nancy Madden died, and that Edmond Nereaux then married Pauline Demolet, by whom he had several children, including the opponent. There is no proof that Nancy Madden was iharried to Pruett, or that she was divorced from him, but it is shown that it was common rumor that Edmond Nereaux had taken Theodule Pruett’s wife, and it is not shown that she was ever married to Nereaux.

In order to entitle the opponent to a judgment, he should show that the decedent was his lawful brother, either of the whole or of the half blood, for “the surviving wife is called to the inheritance, and preferred to-all the natural .relations of the husband, and he to all her natural relations, except those of the descending line.” Victor v. Tagiasco’s Executor, 6 La. 542; Succession of Ducloslange, 2 La. Ann. 98; Montégut v. Bacas, Exctr, 42 La. Ann. 160, 7 South. 449.

The judge a quo was of the opinion that the required proof had not been made, 'and we concur in that conclusion. The judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed.

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

Related

Succession of Thompson
71 So. 2d 544 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1954)
Succession of Wesley
69 So. 2d 8 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1953)
Succession of Wesley
64 So. 2d 470 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1953)
Wilson v. Rogers
14 So. 2d 650 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1943)
Howard v. Ingle
180 So. 248 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1938)
Succession of Young
117 So. 150 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1928)
Rowe v. Succession of Blackburn
94 So. 325 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1922)
Delpit v. Canal Bank & Trust Co.
78 So. 565 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1917)
Felix v. Bruce
14 Teiss. 64 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 So. 594, 112 La. 572, 1904 La. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nereauxs-estate-la-1904.