Succession of Moore

18 La. Ann. 512
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided June 15, 1866·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Hyman, O. J.

A rule was taken by the administrator of the succession of Maria Moore, deceased, on Charles Ross, for him to show cause why oertain movable property in his possession, claimed as belonging to said succession, should not be delivered by him to the administrator.

Ross, by exception, objected to this mode of proceeding. His exception was overruled, and judgment was rendered against him.

From the judgment the administrator appealed.

Summary proceedings are only to be used when prescribed by law. Code Practice, Art. 754.

No provision of law authorizes the administrator of a succession to recover property by summary process. His remedy is by ordinary process. See 8 An. 11.

It is decreed that the judgment of the District Court be reversed, that the exception be sustained, and that the rule be discharged. The succession to pay costs.

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

Succession of Moore, 18 La. Ann. 512 (La. 1866).

18 La. Ann. 512 (Succession of Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nelson v. McCarter
212 So. 2d 467 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1968)
Succession of Pittman
6 So. 2d 685 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1942)
Younger Bros. v. Spell
193 So. 354 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1939)
Southern Coal Co. v. Thibodaux Chauvin
181 So. 80 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1938)
Succession of Esteves
162 So. 194 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1935)
Beshel v. N. O. Thrift Stores, Inc.
120 So. 394 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1929)
Succession of Desina
42 So. 936 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1907)