Pierce v. Pierce

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Pierce v. Pierce

2 La. Ann. 329

DecidedMarch 15, 1847

StatusPublished

This text of 2 La. Ann. 329 (Pierce v. Pierce) 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

Pierce v. Pierce, 2 La. Ann. 329 (La. 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

The judgment of the court was pronounced by

King, J.

The plaintiffs instituted this action in the Probate Court praying for a partition of their ancestor’s succession, and that their co-heirs should be decreed to collate certain property which they had received. The defendants excepted to the jurisdiction of the court, alleging that the suit was not for a partition, but an action in revendication. The exception was sustained in the court below, and from the judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiffs have appealed.

The judge, in our opinion, erred. The Court of Probates, as it lately existed, had jurisdiction of partitions of succession property, and whenever, in suits for partition, the title to real estate was brought in question, either directly or collaterally, authority was conferred on these courts by statute, to decide upon such questions of title. Code of Practice, art. 1022. Civil Code, arts. 1250, 1304. Acts of 27th March, 1843, p. 45, § 3.

It is therefore decreed that the judgment of the court below be reversed, and that the cause be remanded to be proceeded with according to law.

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

The judgment of the court was pronounced by

King, J.

The plaintiffs instituted this action in the Probate Court praying for a partition of their ancestor’s succession, and that their co-heirs should be decreed to collate certain property which they had received. The defendants excepted to the jurisdiction of the court, alleging that the suit was not for a partition, but an action in revendication. The exception was sustained in the court below, and from the judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiffs have appealed.

The judge, in our opinion, erred. The Court of Probates, as it lately existed, had jurisdiction of partitions of succession property, and whenever, in suits for partition, the title to real estate was brought in question, either directly or collaterally, authority was conferred on these courts by statute, to decide upon such questions of title. Code of Practice, art. 1022. Civil Code, arts. 1250, 1304. Acts of 27th March, 1843, p. 45, § 3.

It is therefore decreed that the judgment of the court below be reversed, and that the cause be remanded to be proceeded with according to law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 La. Ann. 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-pierce-la-1847.