TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Heirs of Gee v. Parish Judge of Claiborne

State ex rel. Heirs of Gee v. The Parish Judge of Claiborne

State ex rel. Heirs of Gee v. Parish Judge of Claiborne, 26 La. Ann. 122 (1874)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 15, 1874
Docket
No. 4957
Judges
Morgan
Citations
26 La. Ann. 122
Headnotes
The question in this ease ig whether the judge a, qxto had the right to refuse a suspensive appeal. This is not the case of a contest as to which of several applicants shall he appointed adminis* trator of a succession, where the necessity of an administration is not questioned, and where the appointment under the law takes effect notwithstanding an appeal. The question is whether there was any necessity for an administration at all. From a judgment deciding this against them, the heirs had a right to a suspensive appeal to this court.
Summary
Application for a mandamus against the Parish Judge of the parish of Claiborne.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Morgan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Morgan, J.

Mrs. Gee died on the eleventh December, 1873. D. B. Harrison, public administrator for the parish of Claiborne, applied to the parish court to be appointed administrator. His application was made on the eleventh December, 1873. He represented to the court that Mrs. Gee had died without leaving any will, and that she had left no heirs, present or represented, in the State.

On the twentieth December, certain parties claiming to be the heirs ■of Mrs. Gee, opposed his application, and prayed to be put in possession of the succession, they proposing to accept the same purely and unconditionally. '

Before their opposition was tried, the public administrator presented •another petition to the parish court, alleging that his first application was inadvertently made, and praying to be put in possession of the ■estate at once. The order was granted. From this order, which is a judgment, the parties claiming to be heirs asked for a suspensive appeal, which was refused, whereupon they apply to us for a mandamus against the judge praying that he be ordered to grant the suspensive appeal.

They are entitled to it. This is not the case of a contest as to who ■of several applicants shall be appointed administrator of a succession, where the necessity of an administration is not questioned, and where ■the appointment under the law takes effect notwithstanding an appeal. The question is was there any necessity for an administration at all, and from the judgment deciding this question against them, the heirs had a right to a suspensive appeal to this court.

The rule is made absolute, and the mandamus is to be issued as prayed for.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1914: 119142026peak 1914 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Succession of Serres66 So. 342 (La. 1914)

Most recent

  1. Succession of Serres66 So. 342 (La. 1914)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list