Succession of Wengert
Succession of Wengert, 152 So. 747 (La. 1934).
Cited by
- In re the Succession of Crotty 106 So. 2d 459 La. 1958
- Succession of Bechtel 91 So. 2d 602 La. 1956
- Succession of Goree 68 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
- Succession of Solari 50 So. 2d 801 La. 1951
- Department of Wild Life and Fisheries v. the Timothy 32 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
- Dept. of Wild Life and Fisheries v. the Baltimore 32 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
- Successions of Ethridge 29 So. 2d 55 La. 1946
- In Re Weinberger Banana Co. 20 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
- Succession of Lecompte 199 So. 122 La. 1940
- In Re Ruston Creamery, Inc. 174 So. 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- General Motors Truck Co. v. Caddo Transfer & Warehouse Co. 172 So. 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- Opposition of Roy v. Vercher 158 So. 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Succession of Johnson 141 La. 842
- Kahn v. Kahn 154 La. 729
- Succession of Koppel 171 La. 119
- Murff v. Ratcliff 131 So. 194
Opinion text
O’NIELL, Chief. Justice. ' The testamentary executor of this estate has appealed from a judgment ordering him to pay to the widow of the testator $120, in three monthly payments of $40 each, on account of the legacies coming to her. The widow has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the amount in dispute is less than $2,000. The value of the estate, however, or the fund to be distributed by the executor, is $9,051.83. According to section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution, this court has appellate jurisdiction in suits where a fund to be distributed, regardless of the amount therein claimed, exceeds $2,000, as well as in suits where the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000. And, in a succession or other concurso proceeding, the test of appellate jurisdiction is not the amount ordered paid out or distributed provisionally, but the whole amount of the fund to . be distributed. . Succession. of Johnson, 141 La. 842 , 75 So. 743 . The decisions relied upon by counsel for the appellee are not appropriate, viz.: Kahn v. Kahn, 154 La. 729 , 98 So. 167 ; Succession of Koppel, 171 La. 119 , 129 So. 727 , and Murff v. Ratcliff, 171 Da. 419, 131 So. 194 . In Kahn v. Kahn the fund to be distributed was only $173.29, and the only effect which the opposition or contest could have had would have been to increase the fund to $549.85. In the Succession of Koppel, the contest was over a fund of $156.50. There was no other fund remaining for distribution. Murff v. Ratcliff was a hypothecary action, based upon a judgment for only $231.50, and the ruling was that this court did not have jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the contest depended upon the question whether a former *1029 owner of the property had a homestead exemption. The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.