Case Name: Succession of Francois Bougére
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1876-05
Citations: 28 La. Ann. 743
Docket Number: No. 5475
Parties: Succession of Francois Bougére.
Judges: Mr. Justice Wyly concurs in this opinion as relates to the appeal oí Mrs. Boé, and dissents as to the rest.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 743–748

Head Matter:
No. 5475.
Succession of Francois Bougére.
It not appearing that the heirs who have appealed have acquiesced in any manner in the judgment appealed from, unless the mere fact of their not having applied for a suspensive appeal is acquiescence, which it is not, the application they made within a year was in time, for within that time they had a right to appeal.
As to those appellants who are married women, they appear through their attorney in fact, who was duly authorized by them, and they were authorized by their husbands to grant the power of attorney. The mandate gives to the mandatary power to appear in all courts of justice for the purpose of defending their interests. They are therefore properly before the court.
Killeul is not entitled to any thing as legatee under the testator’s will. The testator beaueathed a blank sum to Pilleul. This was leaving him no certain sum of money, not even any money at all. He may have intended to do so, but what his intentions were it is impossible to tell. If he intended to bequeath a sum, what was it ? How can it be ascertained ? An arbitrary power in such matter is disclaimed by the court. The law gives no authority to fix the amount of a legacy which has not been determined by the testator. All that can be said in regard to Killeul is that the testator has changed his mind, and that, at all events, ho made no legacy.
It has been held that a discharge under the bankrupt law does not release one from the obligation to collate, upon the same principle the heir can not plead against collation that the debt which he owes is prescribed.
If the parties wore claiming simply as heirs of the deceased, being collaterals, they could not be forced to collate. But they do not claim as heirs. They claim under the will. They must therefore take according to the terms of the will.
Now, the will próvidos that the donations which the testator may have made to his heirs, as well as the debts and other advances which they owe him, shall be brought into his succession, in order that the three branches of his heirs may be placed upon a footing of perfect equality.
Alphonse, now deceased, was one of the three branches. In order that the provisions of the will should bo carried out, it was necessary that he should collato what he owed. His children can have no greater rights or interest in the succession of which he formed a branch than he had. He would have been obliged to collate. So are they.
APPEAL from the Parish Court, parish of St. Charles. Durapau, J.
E. Bermudez & C. JP. Claiborne, A. J. Villero, and Ernest Morel, for appellants.
E. Eilleul, Alfred Phillips & Brieugne, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Ludeling, C. J.
The appellee moves to dismiss the appeals in this ease, on the grounds following, to wit:
First — That the appellants have voluntarily executed the judgment appealed from, and have voluntarily acquiesced in and ratified its execution, as .per affidavit and exhibits annexed to and made part of this motion.
Second — That all the parties, contradictorily with whom the judgment was rendered, had not been made parties to the appeal, and have not 'been cited.
Third — That the claim of Aehille Bougere, Marguerite Bougere, and Elie Bougere, has been settled since the appeal was granted, as per affidavit and exhibits hereunto annexed.
Fourth — That the appeal was granted to Achille Bougere, Marguerite Bougere, and Elie Bougere upon the condition that they should furnish bond and security in the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars; that they never furnished such bond, but settled their claim and acquiesced in the judgment.
Fifth — That the appeal taken by Pelagie Mariette, wife of Cerisior, Zénide Gauthier, wife of H. Jordan, and Josephine Desportes, wife of Pierre Peirault, who all reside in France, should bo dismissed, because their husbands are not in court, have not joined in said appeals, and there is no evidence of record indicating that said appellants are acting with the assistance of their said husbands or of the court.
Sixth — That the appeal of Mrs. Julie Boe should bo dismissed, because she can not appeal from a judgment of the honorable the Supreme Court of the State already rendered in this suit heretofore, by which it was finally decided that she is without interest or capacity to stand in judgment in this succession.
The executor rendered an account, which was homologated. In it he had made a distribution or partition of the property among the legatees, after paying creditors. Some time after this judgment Élio, Marguerite, and Achille Bougere obtained an order for a suspensive appeal, but they subsequently received from the executor their shares or amounts adjudged to them by the judgment; others of the heirs or legatees also received their shares under the judgment. The heirs were all parties to the judgment, and they know that the executor had boon ordered to pay the creditors and legatees, and after the judgment had been to a great extent executed they should not bo allowed to appeal from a judgment which they have permitted to be executed. In the succession of Egana this court said: " It can not be controverted that, under the laws and jurisprudence of this State, the party who voluntarily executes, either partially or in toto, a judgment rendered for or against him, or who voluntarily acquiesces in or ratifies, either partially or in loto, the execution of that judgment, is not permitted to appeal from it." 18 An. 62, and. cases there cited.
This judgment is an entirety, and it has been acquiesced in and partially executed.
As to Mrs. Boé, this court decided in a ease reported in 26 An. p. 127, that she had no standing in court. The proceeding in the Second District Court of New Orleans, in which she was recognized as presumptive heir, was unauthorized, as the person, whose heir she claimed to be, never resided in this State and never owned any property in it.
It is therefore ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
Mr. Justice Wyly concurs in this opinion as relates to the appeal oí Mrs. Boé, and dissents as to the rest.
MORGAN, J. I concur with reference to the acquiescence, but I dissent as to the decree as it affects Mrs. Boé, and will file my reasons hereafter.