Case ID: la-ann_26/html/0595-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Moe&an, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 834.
    Succession of R. P. Epperson.
    Among the several grounds of opposition to a public administrator’s account it was urged,, that said public administrator bad not been legally appointed. To this tbe Administrator excepted on tbe ground that it was an attempt to remove bim from office, wbicb be maintained, could only be done by direct action. Tbe judge a quo erred in dismissing tbe opposition. Admitting that in sucb a proceeding as was before tbe court, tbe administrator’s capacity could not be questioned, still bis exception should only bave been maintained in so far as it related to tbe denial of bis capacity: Tbe merits of tbe opposition on other points remained intact, and tbe opponent bad a right to bave them passed upon.
    APPEAL from the Parish Court, parish of Yermilion. Guegnon, J.
    
      B. 8. Perry, for opponent and appellee. F. B. Kmg, for the succession, appellee.
   Moe&an, J.

The public administrator published an account of his, administiation. The aecouut was opposed by Perry, administrator of the succession of Bradley. Among other grounds of opposition, it was urged that the public administrator had not been legally appointed. To this opposition the administrator excepted on the ground that it was an attempt to remove him from office, which, he says, can only be done by direct action. His exception was maintained and the opposition dismissed. The judge erred. Admitting that in such a proceeding as is now before us, the administrator’s capacity could not be questioned, still his exception should only have been maintained in so far as it related to the denial of his capacity. The exception maintained in this regard, still left the merits of the opposition intact, and the opponent had a right to have them passed upon.

It is therefore ordered adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the parish court be avoided, annulled and reversed, and that the case be remanded to be proceeded with according to law, the costs of appeal to be borne by the administrator.