Marchand v. Caurlier

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Marchand v. Caurlier

4 La. 299

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedAugust 15, 1832

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 La. 299 (Marchand v. Caurlier) 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

Marchand v. Caurlier, 4 La. 299 (La. 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, delivered by

Porter, J.

This is an appeal taken from the judgement of the Court of Probates, on an account rendered by the testamentary [300]*300executor to the heirs. Several objections have been made to the correctness, but our attention has been principally called to two points.

Objections to accounts of executors must be made in writing within three days after the account is filed. An objection which should have been made in the court below, cannot be noticed by the appellate court.

The first is a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court to hear testimony that the executor had lent out the moneys of the estate on interest. The court did not err, as the law requires all objections to accounts of executors to be made in writing, within three days after the account is filled. Code of Practice 1003.

The right of the executor to repel any evidence which went to shew the incorrectness of his account, was waived in regard to rents alleged to have been received by him, and evidence taken in relation to it, without opposition. That evidence has been examined, and though it excites strong doubts in our minds of the correctness of the judgement rendered below, we are unable to positively say there is error in it, and we therefore think the decree should not be disturbed. The parish judge seems to have been conversant with the facts of this part of the case, for he was examined as a witness, and must be able to form a more correct opinion in relation to them than we can.

The appellee has prayed to have the judgment amended in his favor, and claims it on the ground, that as exceptions were not filed to the account, an inquiry into his correctness in the court below, was irregular. This may be true; but the proper time to make this objection was, when the court did go into that inquiry. Having permitted it on the trial below, without opposition, it is too late to present the objection here.

It is, therefore, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgement of the Probate Court be affirmed, with costs.

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

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, delivered by

Porter, J.

This is an appeal taken from the judgement of the Court of Probates, on an account rendered by the testamentary [300]*300executor to the heirs. Several objections have been made to the correctness, but our attention has been principally called to two points.

Objections to accounts of executors must be made in writing within three days after the account is filed. An objection which should have been made in the court below, cannot be noticed by the appellate court.

The first is a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court to hear testimony that the executor had lent out the moneys of the estate on interest. The court did not err, as the law requires all objections to accounts of executors to be made in writing, within three days after the account is filled. Code of Practice 1003.

The right of the executor to repel any evidence which went to shew the incorrectness of his account, was waived in regard to rents alleged to have been received by him, and evidence taken in relation to it, without opposition. That evidence has been examined, and though it excites strong doubts in our minds of the correctness of the judgement rendered below, we are unable to positively say there is error in it, and we therefore think the decree should not be disturbed. The parish judge seems to have been conversant with the facts of this part of the case, for he was examined as a witness, and must be able to form a more correct opinion in relation to them than we can.

The appellee has prayed to have the judgment amended in his favor, and claims it on the ground, that as exceptions were not filed to the account, an inquiry into his correctness in the court below, was irregular. This may be true; but the proper time to make this objection was, when the court did go into that inquiry. Having permitted it on the trial below, without opposition, it is too late to present the objection here.

It is, therefore, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgement of the Probate Court be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 La. 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marchand-v-caurlier-la-1832.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack