Cited by

[441] 461; : “ ‘Fidei commissa, the trusts of the English law/ said this court in Partee, Trustee v. Succession of Hill, 12 La.Ann.

of Franklin-Adelicia Acklen and child Emma, vs. Franklin, ; Xiques vs. Bujac, 7 La.

In , the court, in dealing with the question of domicile, said: “In France, where, owing to the different systems of laws and customs formerly existing in the different provinces, questions of domicile have been much discussed, and.

In (decided in 1852, but arising out of facts ae *52 cruing before that year), there was no question whatever of a separate domicile for husband and wife.

We have constantly before us the danger of deviating from the principles established in that case, and of introducing modifications of the right of property, established by a system of jurisprudence, to which our Code is directly opposed.” In , the court said: “The title which the testator has attempted to create belongs to.

Suec’n of Franklin, ; Le Blanc v. Loughridge, 95 South.

Ann. 461 ; : “Fidei commissa, the trusts of the English law,” said this court in Partee, Trustee, v. Succession of Hill, 12 La.

cisions in which this court referred to the abolishment, by article 1573 of the Civil Code, of the right or custom of making wills by proxy, in the cases of Pink v. Pink, Successions of Burke, of Meunier, of McCloskey, and of Villa, counsel for the plaintiffs have also cited the decisions on the subject of prohibited substitutions and fidei commissa in the following cases: ; Succession of McCan, 48 La.

Indeed, the very generality complained of is an illustration of Christian charity ; and uncertainty of individual object at the time of the gift is its characteristic and element.” Again we say in the McDonogk Case: “I do not think that what was decided or said in that case [ ] has any application to this.

Ann. 441 ; ; Perin v. McMicken, 15 La.

It is our policy that ownership should vest at the death of the-testator, so that there should exist no restraint: on alienability of property.” *281 Again, in the case of , speaking for the court, -Judge Rost, the same whose dictum is hereinafter quoted, said: “Under the view I have taken in the case it Is unnecessary to answer the argument that the establishment of property by will is not prohibited in Louisiana.

Code, and under the doctrine of the cases of ; State v. Executors of McDonogh, 8 La.