Succession of Begué

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Succession of Begué

36 So. 849, 112 La. 1046, 1904 La. LEXIS 507

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 1, 1904

DocketNo. 15,087

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 36 So. 849 (Succession of Begué) 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

Succession of Begué, 36 So. 849, 112 La. 1046, 1904 La. LEXIS 507 (La. 1904).

Pincite

Opinions

PROVO STY, J.

This is a rule taken on the register of mortgages and on the present tutor of the minors BeguS, .by the universal legatee of the former tutor of the minors, now deceased, to show cause why the mortgage of the minors on the property of the deceased should not be canceled. The rule is taken by motion, as part of the proceedings in the matter of the succession of BeguS, in which proceedings the several tutors were appointed. The allegation is that the mover in rule has made with the tutor of the minors a settlement of all claims of the minors against the dead tutor, and has received from him final acquittance and discharge, with the approval of the under-tutor, and is therefore entitled to have the inscription of the minor’s mortgage against the property of the dead tutor canceled. The tutor thus settled with was not the defendant in rule, present tutor of the minors, but his predecessor in the tutorship.

Defendant excepted that the motion showed no cause of action, and this exception having been sustained, the plaintiff in rule took the present appeal. The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the transcript does not contain a copy of all the proceedings had below. By this the appellee means all the proceedings in the matter of the succession of BeguS.

The sole question on this appeal is as to whether the motion showed, or not, a cause of action. For the determination of this question, the motion itself, and the exception of no cause of action, and the judgment sustaining the exception, was all that was necessary to be brought up; and this the transcript contains. We fail to see, and it is not suggested, what else would be necessary. Of course, it is worse than idle for counsel to say that for the determination of this question all the proceedings in the succession are necessary.

Motion to dismiss overruled.

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

PROVO STY, J.

This is a rule taken on the register of mortgages and on the present tutor of the minors BeguS, .by the universal legatee of the former tutor of the minors, now deceased, to show cause why the mortgage of the minors on the property of the deceased should not be canceled. The rule is taken by motion, as part of the proceedings in the matter of the succession of BeguS, in which proceedings the several tutors were appointed. The allegation is that the mover in rule has made with the tutor of the minors a settlement of all claims of the minors against the dead tutor, and has received from him final acquittance and discharge, with the approval of the under-tutor, and is therefore entitled to have the inscription of the minor’s mortgage against the property of the dead tutor canceled. The tutor thus settled with was not the defendant in rule, present tutor of the minors, but his predecessor in the tutorship.

Defendant excepted that the motion showed no cause of action, and this exception having been sustained, the plaintiff in rule took the present appeal. The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the transcript does not contain a copy of all the proceedings had below. By this the appellee means all the proceedings in the matter of the succession of BeguS.

The sole question on this appeal is as to whether the motion showed, or not, a cause of action. For the determination of this question, the motion itself, and the exception of no cause of action, and the judgment sustaining the exception, was all that was necessary to be brought up; and this the transcript contains. We fail to see, and it is not suggested, what else would be necessary. Of course, it is worse than idle for counsel to say that for the determination of this question all the proceedings in the succession are necessary.

Motion to dismiss overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 So. 849, 112 La. 1046, 1904 La. LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/succession-of-begue-la-1904.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack