Interdiction of Haaf

Citations

• 52 La. Ann. 249

Syllabus

<p>SAU.LABUS.</p> <p>1. Acceptance of a portion of the property inherited. An heir, anxious to equalize her portion of the inheritance, in accepting the succession, accepted only to the extent that she knew the <le cujus intended her to accept.</p> <p>2. Renunciation of a portion. She renounced the remainder of the succession in favor of her co-heir in conformity with the intention of the de cujus.</p> <p>Held : That the renunciation was not a donation. It had not the form and essentials to make it a donation.</p> <p>3. Good faith. In renouncing, the heir complied, in good faith, with the wishes of the one from whom she inherited.</p> <p>4. Rot a donation. It is quite exceptional, on the part of an heir, to renounce an advantage in order to equalize shares, and the effect of the renunciation is not to he construed as an act of donation different from that intended by the one renouncing.</p> <p>5. Expenditures not unauthorizedly made. The properties were sold in accordance with an order of court and it does not appear that they were sold, as charged by the defendants, to pay a judgment against the interdict for expenditures m excess of her revenues.</p> <p>6. Amount of indebtedness justified sale. The claims against the interdict were' sufficient in amount to justify the sale.</p> <p>7. The orders of the court justified the sale. The title offered to the adjudi-catee was good and valid and not one which can be subjected hereafter to any'claim against the vendor by her heirs for having donated property in excess of the disposable quantum.</p>