Lewis v. King
Lewis v. King, 103 So. 19 (La. 1925).
Cited by
Distinguished in 1
- Cutright v. Wilson 410 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
- Linder v. Blount 366 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
- Succession of MacK 366 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
- Eves v. Morgan City Fund 252 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
- Ardoin v. LeBleu 208 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
- Succession of Sonnier 208 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
- Prestridge v. Humble Oil & Refining Company 131 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
- Hodges v. Long-Bell Petroleum Company 121 So. 2d 831 La. 1960
- Leaveau v. Primeaux 117 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
- James v. Le Blanc 95 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
- Boudreaux v. Olin Industries, Inc. 94 So. 2d 417 La. 1957
- Home Finance Co. v. Ayala 78 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Opinion text
We do not think an amendment of the decree is necessary. The opinion in the case, expressly and specifically reserves to Mrs. S.J. Hyde all of her rights and interest, as an heir of her *Page 728 deceased father, in and to his community interest in the 40 acres of land described as the S.W. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 3, township 21, range 8 west, Claiborne parish, La., and the decree sends all of the heirs, who are plaintiffs in the suit, into possession of the property in the proportion and in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion. Mrs. Hyde is an heir and one of the plaintiffs, and it is therefore unnecessary that her rights should be more clearly defined. The motion is denied.