Kinchen v. Estate of Bollinger
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., August 20, 1976 336 So. 2d 1064; La. Ct. App. 5th Cir., November 2, 1973 286 So. 2d 708; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 29, 1962 144 So. 2d 163; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 22, 1912 9 Teiss. 266
Kinchen v. Estate of Bollinger, 146 So. 2d 416 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962).
Cited by
- Board of Commissioners v. Lomm 220 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
- Kinchen v. Estate of Bollinger 144 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Opinion text
HERGET, Judge. Plaintiff instituted executory proceedings against the Estate of Joseph E. Bollinger (the heirs and surviving spouse) contradictorily with a curator ad hoc appointed by the trial Court upon his allegation “ * * * that an order of executory process enter accordingly with appointment of an attorney to represent them as the mortgagor is dead, no representative or judgment of possession and in accordance with Section 2 of article 2674 of La. Code of civil procedure.” The property was sold at public auction and was bought in by Plaintiff. After the sale of the property the Plaintiff instituted a Third Opposition in the proceeding contradictorily with the attorney appointed in accordance with the above referred to article of LSA-C.C.P. seeking payment of other indebtedness allegedly owed to him by the succession and judgment was rendered on said Third Opposition in favor of Plaintiff for the amounts sought and ordering the Sheriff of Livingston Parish, Louisiana to distribute the funds accordingly. Subsequent to said judgment an appeal was granted to this Court on the petition of Dorothy Jane Watts Bollinger who alleged that she was the duly qualified administra-trix of the Succession of Joseph E. Bollin-ger. In this Court appellee has filed an exception of no cause or right of action predicated on the assertion that there is nothing in the record to show that appellant is a party in interest, either in a representative capacity or in an individual capacity. Though the petition for appeal was granted on the representation of appellant that she was the duly qualified ad-ministratrix of the Succession of Joseph E. Bollinger, there is not attached to the petition Letters of Administration to appellant. Inasmuch as this Court cannot take evidence on an issue, under the provisions of LSA-C.C.P. Article 2164 this matter is remanded to the Trial Court solely for the purpose of permitting appellant within ten (10) days from this judgment in a proceeding contradictorily with ap-pellee to place in the record evidence of her appointment and qualification as adminis-tratrix of the Succession of Joseph E. Bollinger and upon the furnishing of such evidence same is to be transmitted to this Court within three (3) days thereafter, this Court retaining jurisdiction of the appeal on the present Order of Appeal and bond furnished thereon. Remanded.