Matter of the Succession of Jones

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Matter of the Succession of Jones

121 So. 878, 168 La. 312, 1929 La. LEXIS 1785

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 25, 1929

DocketNo. 21935.

StatusPublished

This text of 121 So. 878 (Matter of the Succession of Jones) 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

Matter of the Succession of Jones, 121 So. 878, 168 La. 312, 1929 La. LEXIS 1785 (La. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, O. J.

The administrator of the estate of John M. Jones, deceased, has appealed from a judgment amending his final account by increasing the charges against him $500, and ordering him to pay that much more to the heirs, after paying the costs of the opposition to the account. The ease was sent to the delay docket twice, because of the failure of appellant’s counsel to file a brief or to be present when the case was called for argument. The case was revived twice, and reassigned for argument, and yet counsel for appellant failed to file a brief or to, appear for the argument of the case. It was submitted finally on briefs filed by the appellees — heirs of the deceased.

The judgment appealed from is apparently supported by the evidence, and, without any specific complaint, there is no reason why it should not be affirmed.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

O’NIELL, O. J.

The administrator of the estate of John M. Jones, deceased, has appealed from a judgment amending his final account by increasing the charges against him $500, and ordering him to pay that much more to the heirs, after paying the costs of the opposition to the account. The ease was sent to the delay docket twice, because of the failure of appellant’s counsel to file a brief or to be present when the case was called for argument. The case was revived twice, and reassigned for argument, and yet counsel for appellant failed to file a brief or to, appear for the argument of the case. It was submitted finally on briefs filed by the appellees — heirs of the deceased.

The judgment appealed from is apparently supported by the evidence, and, without any specific complaint, there is no reason why it should not be affirmed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 878, 168 La. 312, 1929 La. LEXIS 1785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-the-succession-of-jones-la-1929.