DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Heft, 112 So. 301.

14 citing documents.

  • Succession of Goode 395 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    at a testament may convey the usufruct of property to one legatee and the ownership of it to another, the title to the property itself to the one legatee, as well as the usufruct to the other legatee, must be transmitted directly from the testator and invest the title in the one legatee and the usufruct in the other immediately at the death of the testator, (citations omitted) , 112 So.
  • Bryan v. Morgan 260 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Distinguished Succession of McCrary 246 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Crichton v. Succession of Gredler 235 So. 2d 411 La. 1970
  • Succession of Thomas 202 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    And, in a later case dealing with this subject, with Chief Justice O’Niell again the author of the opinion, the court held: 'A bequest of property to one legatee with the stipulation that on the condition that at his death and without any act of conveyance from him it shall belong to another legatee named in the will is a prohibited substitution.’ , 112 So.
  • Succession of Simms 195 So. 2d 114 La. 1966
  • Succession of Thilborger 101 So. 2d 678 La. 1958
    908 ] (and other cases) the court in Succession of Heft said ( , 112 So.
  • Succession of Ryan 82 So. 2d 759 La. 1955
    It is stated there that: “Every disposition by which the donee, the heir, or legatee is charged to preserve for or to return a thing to a third person is null, even with regard to the donee, the instituted heir or the legatee.” In interpreting this article of the Civil Code, it was stated in , 112 So.
  • Succession of Johnson 67 So. 2d 591 La. 1953
    Another case which we think bears a similarity to the one at bar is that of , 112 So.
  • Succession of Rougon 65 So. 2d 104 La. 1953
    596 , , 112 So, 301 , Succession of Williams, 169 La.
  • Maddox v. Butchee 14 So. 2d 4 La. 1943
    “In consequence of this article the trebellianic portion of the civil law, that is to say, the portion of the property of the testator, which the instituted heir had a right to detain, when he was charged with a fidei commissa or fiduciary bequest is' no longer a part of our law.” We had occasion in the case of , 112 So.
  • Distinguished Succession of Blossom 194 So. 572 La. 1940
  • Succession of Feitel 146 So. 145 La. 1933
    e court, said: “The simplest test of the substitution prohibited by our law, is that it vests the property in one person, at the death of the donor, (in case of testaments) and, at the death of such person, vests the same property in another person, who takes the same directly from the testator, but by a title which only-springs into existence on the death of the first donee.” , 112 So.
  • Succession of Williams 125 So. 858 La. 1930
    470 , , it is held that: “In order that a testament may convey the usufruct of property to one legatee and the ownership of it to another, the title to the property itself to the one legatee as well as the usufruct to the other legatee, must be transmitted directly from the testator and invest the title in the one lega