Case Name: Succession of Mrs. Widow Julie Couder
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1895-04-22
Citations: 47 La. Ann. 810
Docket Number: No. 11,638
Parties: Succession of Mrs. Widow Julie Couder.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 810–814

Head Matter:
No. 11,638.
Succession of Mrs. Widow Julie Couder.
On the motion to dismiss.
Where a testamentary executor files his fiual account and tableau of distribution, and asks that the funds be distributed and the instituted heirs be placed in possession of the property bequeathed to them, an appeal from a judgment thereon, which only orders the funds distributed, will be sustained. Where subsequently a petition is filed by the testamentary executor alleging the succession to be still under administration and praying for a judgment putting the heirs in possession, which is rendered, an appeal from such a judgment by same parties who took the first appeal will be sustained. The judgments are distinct and on separate matters.
On the Mbkits.
When the heirs take from the succession of their mother as legatees, the co-heirs are entitled to citation to establish or oppose the executor’s account in which lie, the executor, applies to deliver the husband’s property in satisfaction of the legacies left by the mother, before making any proof that there was a translation of the property to the latter.
The account could not be made binding upon the heirs on a judgment of homolo-gation made without citation.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Rightor, J.
Henry P. Dart, for Plaintiff in rule to annul will, Appellants, cites: 6 La. 225; 11 Rob. 120; 30 An. 703; 34 An. 117; 29 An. 381; C. C. 1184-6; 46 An. 265.
William E. Murphy, for Testamentary Executor, defendant in rule, Appellee, cites: 40 An. 273; 10 Rob. 188; 18 An. 263; 30 An. 1138.
ON Motion to Dismiss.
Submitted on briefs December 10, 1894.
Opinion on motion handed down January 2, 1895.
On Meeits.
Submitted on briefs April 11, 1895.
Opinion handed down April 22, 1895.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McEnery, J.
The appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appellants obtained, on the 9th of May, 1894, a suspensive appeal, and subsequently the appellants applied for and obtained a second appeal from the same subject matter.
The two judgments appealed from are in the same transcript.
The testamentary executor filed his tableau of distribution and prayed that he be authorized to distribute the funds of the succession according to the final and definite account which he presented and filed, and that he be authorized by a decree of the court to deliver to the heirs possession of the properties respectively bequeathed to them by the will of the deceased after paying all debts of the succession.
There was no opposition to this account and it was homologated in the following terms: "It is ordered that said account be approved and homologated and the funds distributed accordingly."
From this judgment Amelia Couder, Viola Oouder, Walter and Edward Couder appealed and perfected the same.
On May 22, 1894, following the above judgment, the testamentary executor petitioned the court to put in possession of the instituted heirs the property bequeathed to them.
A judgment was rendered on 22d May, 1894, in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
From this judgment the appellants took a suspensive appeal.
The judgment first rendered only homologated the account, and ordered a distribution of the funds of the succession. That part of the petition and prayer of the testamentary executor to put the instituted heirs in possession found no response in the judgment. In his petition to put the instituted heirs in possession, dated May 22, 1894, he alleges filing the definitive account and its homologation and approval, and that the succession was still under administration in the District Court.
The first judgment had reference only to the approval and homol-ogation of the account, and was silent as to sending the heirs into possession of the property.
The second judgment sent the heirs into possession, and this supplied what was omitted from the first.
As there was no reference in the first judgment to the putting of the heirs in possession, the appellants could not inquire into the legality or validity of such proceeding. Desiring to question the validity of the order, their only recourse was to appeal from the second judgment. The two judgments were on distinct matters and separate decrees. The motion to dismiss is denied.