Succession of Meyer

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Succession of Meyer

53 So. 734, 127 La. 505, 1910 La. LEXIS 854

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 12, 1910

DocketNo. 18,446

StatusPublished

This text of 53 So. 734 (Succession of Meyer) 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 Meyer, 53 So. 734, 127 La. 505, 1910 La. LEXIS 854 (La. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

' PROVOSTY, J.

Motion is made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that all parties to the record below and having an interest in maintaining the judgment have not been made parties to the appeal. The appeal is from a judgment homologating the final account of the administrator of the succession, and was taken by petition during vacation, by an opponent whose claim to be a creditor had been rejected. The parties below were the administrator, a number of creditors whose claims were ordered to be paid, the Austrian consul, representing absent heirs, and the opponent.

The succession being amply solvent, the opponent would have been without interest to oppose the payment of the claims of the other creditors, and, as a matter of fact has not done so, and were the appellant successful on the present appeal, the claims of those other creditors would not be affected. Those other creditors, therefore, were without interest in the appeal, and were in consequence properly left out. Denegre v. Mushet, 46 La. Ann. 90, 14 South. 348.

But the heirs, represented by the Austrian consul, have an interest in the maintenance of the judgment rejecting opponent’s claim. They therefore should have been cited through their said representative. Succession of Treadwell, 38 La. Ann. 260; Succession of Rhea, 33 La. Ann. 369.

Appeal dismissed.

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

' PROVOSTY, J.

Motion is made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that all parties to the record below and having an interest in maintaining the judgment have not been made parties to the appeal. The appeal is from a judgment homologating the final account of the administrator of the succession, and was taken by petition during vacation, by an opponent whose claim to be a creditor had been rejected. The parties below were the administrator, a number of creditors whose claims were ordered to be paid, the Austrian consul, representing absent heirs, and the opponent.

The succession being amply solvent, the opponent would have been without interest to oppose the payment of the claims of the other creditors, and, as a matter of fact has not done so, and were the appellant successful on the present appeal, the claims of those other creditors would not be affected. Those other creditors, therefore, were without interest in the appeal, and were in consequence properly left out. Denegre v. Mushet, 46 La. Ann. 90, 14 South. 348.

But the heirs, represented by the Austrian consul, have an interest in the maintenance of the judgment rejecting opponent’s claim. They therefore should have been cited through their said representative. Succession of Treadwell, 38 La. Ann. 260; Succession of Rhea, 33 La. Ann. 369.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 So. 734, 127 La. 505, 1910 La. LEXIS 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/succession-of-meyer-la-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack