Lee v. Carter

Citations

• 52 La. Ann. 1453

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. The heirs who sue their father for an amount received by nim from the succession of their late mother, and converted to his own use, are not bound to look first to the settlement of the succession of their grandfather, in another parish, the fact being that this succession was opened about twenty years ago, and had been, in effect, settled when plaintiffs brougnt suit to recover from their said debtor.</p> <p>2. While it is true that a court can not travel outside of the four corners of a deed to add new words by parol, relevant evidence explaining or placing the court in the situation of the parties themselves, at the confection of the deed, will be received if it does not vary or contradict its essential declarations. The evidence regarding “cash” was properly. received, to show the dispo'sition made of the amount, and to show that it was retained by the father, who, thereby, became indebted, in the first place, to his wife, and afterwards to her children.</p> <p>3. The testimony of witnesses was corroborated and its verity confirmed by the proceedings in matter of the settlement of the succession, and the circumstances confirming the right claimed. The evidence admitted was neither insufficient, nor was it illegally admitted.</p> <p>On Reheaking.</p> <p>Wé have heretofore passed upon every issue decided in the District Court.</p> <p>The decree of our former decision is modified so as to leave the question of the mortgage, and the vendor’s privilege claimed (on part of the property), open to be settled contradictorily between the heirs of Levy, Jr., and the heirs of Zeigler, in a suit over the proceeds of the said property, which is to be sold, or in such other action, under the law, as the parties may bi’ing.</p>