Case Name: Succession of DRYSDALE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1908-11-04
Citations: 124 La. 256
Docket Number: No. 17,303
Parties: Succession of DRYSDALE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 255–267

Head Matter:
(50 South. 30.)
No. 17,303.
Succession of DRYSDALE.
(Nov. 4, 1908.
On the Merits, March 15, 1909. On Rehearing, June 14, 1909.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 383*) — Bonds — Amount.
There are three grounds set forth in the motion to dismiss the appeal. Two have already been decided in No. 17,277, 47 South. 367, 122 La. 37, under our supervisory jurisdiction.
There remains only one ground for decision; it relates to the alleged insufficiency of the appeal bond.
The appeal cannot be dismissed on that ground. The case is of that class of cases made appealable suspensivoly on bond for costs.
The judge a quo fixed the amount of the bond, and it was furnished by appellant in accordance with the judge’s orders.
LEd. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Ei ror, Cent. Dig. § 2042; Dec. Dig. § 383.*] •
2. Wills (§ 70*) — Validity—Execution in Foreign Country.
A will made in Canada by a resident of the state of Douisiana is entitled to probate in the courts of said state ou proof that the formalities prescribed by the laws of Canada have been observed in the confection of the instrument.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. § 184; Dec. Dig. § 70.*]
3. Wills (§ 289*) — Papers Bound Together —Presumption.
Sheets which are bound together and constitute tho will at the testator’s death are presumed to have been bound together at the time of the attestation, when the papers are coherent and in their natural order.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Wills, Dec. Dig. § 289.*]
4. Evidence (§ 587*) — Suspicious Circumstances — Sufficiency.
Wrongdoing cannot be proved merely by suspicious circumstances.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 2436; Dec. Dig. § 587.*]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Fred D. King, Judge.
In the matter of the succession of Julia P. Drysdale. From a judgment refusing probate to the will propounded, the executors appeal.
Reversed and rendered.
See, also, 122 La. 37, 47 South. 367.
Percy Sommers Benedict and Aloysius Joseph Cahill, for appellants. Woodville & Woodville, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
BREAUX, C. J.
The following are the grounds of appellee's motion to dismiss:
First. The amount of the bond, to wit, $500, is insufficient for a suspensive appeal.
Second. A suspensive appeal will not lie from a judgment refusing to appoint executors, nor from a judgment recognizing legal heirs and sending them into possession.
We will state in the first place: The facts are sufficiently stated in No. 17,277, entitled Succession ,of Miss Julia P. Drysdale, Miss Mary Ann Pike et al., praying for certiorari and mandamus, recently decided by this court (rehearing refused October 7, 1908) 47 South. 367, to relieve us from the necessity of stating them again. All of the grounds of the motion, save one, have already received consideration from this court. It has been held, as to these two grounds, that the losing party had a right to a suspensive appeal on a bond for costs. These grounds, heretofore sustained as just stated, relate to the recognition of the heirs and the sending them into possession. There remains, therefore, only one ground for us to decide, and that is, that the bond is insufficient.
In the cited ease, the district court refused to execute the judgment on the application of the appellees, Miss Mary Ann Pike and others.
It was correct on the part of the district judge to refuse to execute the judgment and to decline to place the heirs in possession.
As relates to the application for the appointment of an executor: That application is a mere incident of the case. If the suspensive appeal were to be dismissed, there would remain a devolutive appeal as relates to the application. The case would still be before ns, as the suspensive appeal really suspends nothing as the issues are before us. We must decline to dismiss it, as its dismissal would serve no purpose.
The only remaining ground for our decision, as before stated, is whether the amount of the bond is sufficient for a suspensive appeal.
It is sufficient. There was no judgment for money, and no moneyed demand suspended by the appeal. There was no reason for requiring a larger bond. The bond for costs suffices in this class of cases.
The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.
122 La. 37.