DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Fertel, 23 So. 2d 234.

31 citing documents.

  • Succession of Gallo 845 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • Lamson Petroleum Co. v. Hallwood Petroleum, Inc. 770 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    The defendants cite language from Succession of Fertel, [ ,] that " When a will is executed, a reasonable and natural presumption is that the testator intends to dispose of his entire estate" presumably to support the argument that Duhon intended to devise the entire 300 arpent tract.
  • Succession of Mott 715 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in , (1945), noted that, when a will is executed, the natural and reasonable presumption is that the testatrix intended to dispose of her entire estate.
  • Succession of Hackney 707 So. 2d 1302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    According to , (1945), when a will is subject to two interpretations and its intent is "obscured by conflicting expressions," the law "selects that which saves from total intestacy.
  • Hendry v. Succession of Helms 557 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • Succession of Moran 479 So. 2d 350 La. 1985
  • Succession of Raiford 393 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • In RE SUCCESSIONS OF JOHNSON v. Williams 387 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Matter of Succession of Jones 369 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Carter v. Succession of Carter 332 So. 2d 439 La. 1976
  • Succession of Franz 329 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    recognize[d] that the weight of the authority does favor, in the interpretation, that a testament intends to dispose of an entire estate, and where the testamentary intent to do such can be gleaned from a reading of the will the Court should so construe the will.” , (1945).
  • Succession of Killingsworth 292 So. 2d 536 La. 1974
    (1945); Succession of Montegut, 211 La.
  • Succession of Stewart 287 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    In the , (1945), with reference to the aforesaid codal provisions, the Supreme Court pointed ^ut: “These rules have been strictly adhered to by this Court in numerous cases involving the interpretation of wills.
  • Succession of Martin 262 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    In , , the court interpreted a bequest reading "Everything I possess, I leave the use of it to my husband during his life time, [and] at his death ...
  • Succession of Dinwiddie 263 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
  • Succession of Barnett 245 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    We note the pronouncement by the court in , (1945): “It is evident from a reading of the will that it was written by the testatrix without the aid of counsel.
  • Succession of Simms 195 So. 2d 114 La. 1966
    810 , ; , ; Tucker, Substitutions, 24 Louisiana Law Review 439, 490-491.
  • Giroir v. Dumesnil 172 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    art. 1712.” Capable counsel for appellants cites , , in support of the principle that it is reasonable and natural to presume a testator intends to dispose of his entire estate, and there is no ground for presuming he intended to die intestate as to any part of his estate when the language in his testament clearly evidences intent to dispose of all his
  • Succession of Shows 158 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    791 , ; , ; Succession of May, 109 La.
  • Oroszy v. Burkard 158 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    614 , , our Supreme Court held: "When a will is executed, a reasonable and natural presumption is that the testator intends to dispose of his entire estate.
  • Succession of Van Baast 140 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    "Art. 1716: A mistake in the name of an object bequeathed is of no moment, if it can be ascertained what the thing was which the testator intended to bequeath.” The rules for the interpretation of wills are clearly set forth in the , , at page 237, decided by the Supreme Court of this state, as follows: “One of the cardinal rules laid down by the Civil Code in Article 1712 for the interpretation of wills is that: ‘ * * * the intention of the testator must principally be endeavored to be ascertai
  • Succession of Rogers 138 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    Art. 1519; , ; Succession of Feitel, 176 La.
  • Distinguished In Re Succession of Meadors 135 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    In support thereof we are cited to: , (1945); and Succession of Thilborger, 234 La.
  • Condon v. McCormick 134 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    We quote from the case of , .
  • Succession of Thilborger 101 So. 2d 678 La. 1958
    See also dissenting opinion of Justice, now Chief Justice, Fournet, in , , where he takes cognizance of this conflict in the jurisprudence and discusses some of the cases.
  • In Re Succession of Milne 89 So. 2d 281 La. 1956
    818 , ; , ; Succession of Montegut, 217 La.
  • Succession of Rougon 65 So. 2d 104 La. 1953
    * * * ” In , , cited and relied on by some of the parties hereto as modifying the rule announced in Succession of Ledbetter, the court held that the immediate donee received a usufruct because in the will the bequest was for the use of the property.
  • Heikamp v. Succession of Solari 54 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1951
    As the Supreme Court said in the per curiam in , at page 648, , 245: “ * * In deciding, in any given case, whether a legacy of this kind is violative of article 1520 of the Code, the only question is whether the intention of the testator as expressed in his will was to give the usu-fruct of the property to one person and the ownership to another, as p
  • Succession of Montegut 47 So. 2d 898 La. 1949
    The three cases which are relied on in support of this presumption are , ; Succession of Blakemore, 43 La.Ann.
  • Montegut v. St. Martin 47 So. 2d 898 La. 1949
    L. (Pat) Montegut and to name them her universal legatees.” He based this decision not only upon the evidence but also upon the “reasonable and natural presumption * * * that the testatrix intends to dispose of her entire estate and that she does not intend to die partly testate and partly intestate * * The three cases which are relied on in support of this presumption are , ; Succession of Blakemore, 43 La.Ann.
  • Succession of Montegut 29 So. 2d 583 La. 1947
    And Revised Civil Code Article 1717, relied on by the same counsel, provides: “If it can not be ascertained whether a greater or less quantity has been bequeathed, it must be decided for the least.” Whether these two principles be appropriate here or not, we hesitate to and do not attempt to apply them; they clash *126 head-on with the well-established concept referred to in , , that: “When a will is executed, a reasonable and natural presumption, is that the testator intends to dispose of his e