Skip to main content
· 6/4/1906

Faure v. Faure

Citations

  • 117 La. 204
  • 41 So. 494
  • 1906 La. LEXIS 668

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal-Review — Affirmance.</p> <p>Where, in a suit for a partition of a tract of land among the heirs of the deceased owner, the court ordered a sale at public auction for the purposes of affecting a partition, and subsequently nonsuited the demands of the heirs against each other and ordered a distribution of the proceeds of the sale, the judgment will be-affirmed, when the evidence is too uncertain, yague, and contradictory to enable the court to render an intelligent judgment on the respective demands of the parties.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 3, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 4450-4453.]</p> <p>2. Partition — Issues.</p> <p>In a partition of the separate estate of the deceased father, the accounts to be settled are those between the heirs and his succession, and claims of the heirs against the mother or against each other individually are foreign to the issue.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 38, Cent. Dig. Partition, § 228.]</p> <p>3. Same — Amicable Division — Accounting.</p> <p>Where the father died in 1872, and the widow and four of the five children, in 1880, made an amicable division of a tract of land .belonging to the decedent, and each possessed the separate portions allotted to them respectively until the death of the mother in 1902, they owe no accounting to each other for fruits and revenues or for taxes and repairs.</p> <p>4. Same — Improvements—Appraisal.</p> <p>Where heirs have claims for improvements enhancing the value of land belonging to the estate, such improvements should be appraised separately either before or immediately after the-partition sale.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 38, Cent. Dig. Partition, §§ 236-246.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that there is no “fundamental right to a life-sustaining climate system”
  • dismissing complaint for lack of Article III standing but also finding no constitutional basis for claims to “life-sustaining climate system”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Land

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.