· 6/20/1904

Succession of Dauphin

Citations

113 La. 208
36 So. 941
1904 La. LEXIS 638

Syllabus

APPEAL — DISMISSAL — JURISDICTION — DATIVE TESTAMENTARY EXECUTOR — APPOINTMENT. On Motion to Dismiss. 1. While the active assets to be distributed in accordance with a provisional account filed by the dative testamentary executor were less than this court’s minimum jurisdiction, it appeared from the pleadings before the court, and from the facts shown in the principal suit, made part of the record of the appeal here, that the succession interest was large. The issues, with the record as made up, are not confined to the provisional account. They embrace questions relating to large amounts of the succession. The motion'to dismiss is denied. On the Merits. 2. The appointment of the dative testamentary executor was a nullity. It has been decided in the succession, in which the appointment attacked was made, that the executrix could not be called upon to account, and no appointment of a‘dative executor could be made, m the present situation of the case (Succession of M. A. Dauphin, 112 La. 103, 36 Sonth. 287), and, further, that the setting aside of the judgment discharging the executrix was a condition precedent to the demand for a further accounting. 3. The whole trend of the decision in the cited •case excludes the idea that it was possible to reopen the succession in the manner it was sought to reopen it. The decision cited is controlling. (Syllabus by the Court.)

How courts have described this case

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

denying preliminary injunction because challenged rule was too far removed from alleged harm
Congress adopting \virtually identical language\ from prior legislation \was aware that for twenty-five years [the State Department] had interpreted\ the prior legislation a specific way
Congress adopting “virtually identical language” from prior legislation “was aware that for twenty-five years [the State Department] had interpreted” the prior legislation a specific way

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breaux

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.