Case ID: la_127/html/0506-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "' PROVOSTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(53 South. 734.)
    No. 18,446.
    Succession of MEYER et al.
    (Dec. 12, 1910.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Executors and Administrators (§ 510*)— Account — Appeal — Parties — Necessary Parties.
    A creditor of a solvent estate, appealing from a judgment homologating the final account of the administrator, on the ground that his claim against the estate has been rejected, properly omits as parties to the appeal the creditors whose claims have been allowed; but the heirs represented by a foreign consul have an interest in maintaining the judgment, and they must be cited through their representative.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Dec. Dig. § 510.*]
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; E. K. Skinner, Judge.
    In the matter of the succession of Henrietta Meyer, wife of M. Pericich, and another. From a judgment homologating the final account of the administrator of the succession, Catherine Weber, widow by first marriage of Rudolph Meyer, now the wife of Theophile Nevette, appeals.
    Dismissed.
    Chas. I. Deneehaud, for appellant. James Wilkinson, A. J. Peters, and Caffery, Quintero, Gidiere & Brumby, for appellees.
   ' PROVOSTY, J.

Motion is made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that all parties to the record below and having an interest in maintaining the judgment have not been made parties to the appeal. The appeal is from a judgment homologating the final account of the administrator of the succession, and was taken by petition during vacation, by an opponent whose claim to be a creditor had been rejected. The parties below were the administrator, a number of creditors whose claims were ordered to be paid, the Austrian consul, representing absent heirs, and the opponent.

The succession being amply solvent, the opponent would have been without interest to oppose the payment of the claims of the other creditors, and, as a matter of fact has not done so, and were the appellant successful on the present appeal, the claims of those other creditors would not be affected. Those other creditors, therefore, were without interest in the appeal, and were in consequence properly left out. Denegre v. Mushet, 46 La. Ann. 90, 14 South. 348.

But the heirs, represented by the Austrian consul, have an interest in the maintenance of the judgment rejecting opponent’s claim. They therefore should have been cited through their said representative. Succession of Treadwell, 38 La. Ann. 260; Succession of Rhea, 33 La. Ann. 369.

Appeal dismissed.