Succession of Wengert

152 So. 747, 178 La. 1027
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 29, 1934
DocketNo. 32660.
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 152 So. 747 (Succession of Wengert) 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 Wengert, 152 So. 747, 178 La. 1027 (La. 1934).

Opinion

O’NIELL, Chief. Justice. '

The testamentary executor of this estate has appealed from a judgment ordering him to pay to the widow of the testator $120, in three monthly payments of $40 each, on account of the legacies coming to her. The widow has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the amount in dispute is less than $2,000. The value of the estate, however, or the fund to be distributed by the executor, is $9,051.83.

According to section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution, this court has appellate jurisdiction in suits where a fund to be distributed, regardless of the amount therein claimed, exceeds $2,000, as well as in suits where the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000. And, in a succession or other concurso proceeding, the test of appellate jurisdiction is not the amount ordered paid out or distributed provisionally, but the whole amount of the fund to . be distributed. . Succession. of Johnson, 141 La. 842, 75 So. 743.

The decisions relied upon by counsel for the appellee are not appropriate, viz.: Kahn v. Kahn, 154 La. 729, 98 So. 167; Succession of Koppel, 171 La. 119, 129 So. 727, and Murff v. Ratcliff, 171 Da. 419, 131 So. 194. In Kahn v. Kahn the fund to be distributed was only $173.29, and the only effect which the opposition or contest could have had would have been to increase the fund to $549.85. In the Succession of Koppel, the contest was over a fund of $156.50. There was no other fund remaining for distribution. Murff v. Ratcliff was a hypothecary action, based upon a judgment for only $231.50, and the ruling was that this court did not have jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the contest depended upon the question whether a former *1029 owner of the property had a homestead exemption.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

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

Related

In re the Succession of Crotty
106 So. 2d 459 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1958)
Succession of Bechtel
91 So. 2d 602 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1956)
Succession of Goree
68 So. 2d 636 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1953)
Succession of Solari
50 So. 2d 801 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1951)
Department of Wild Life and Fisheries v. the Timothy
32 So. 2d 622 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1947)
Dept. of Wild Life and Fisheries v. the Baltimore
32 So. 2d 623 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1947)
Successions of Ethridge
29 So. 2d 55 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1946)
In Re Weinberger Banana Co.
20 So. 2d 30 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1944)
Succession of Lecompte
199 So. 122 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1940)
In Re Ruston Creamery, Inc.
174 So. 216 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1937)
General Motors Truck Co. v. Caddo Transfer & Warehouse Co.
172 So. 178 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1937)
Opposition of Roy v. Vercher
158 So. 874 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1935)
Succession of Schneidau
157 So. 137 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)
Succession of Wengert
156 So. 473 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 So. 747, 178 La. 1027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/succession-of-wengert-la-1934.