Case Name: Heirs of Burney vs. John T. Ludeling et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1889-06
Citations: 41 La. Ann. 627
Docket Number: No. 1,151
Parties: Heirs of Burney vs. John T. Ludeling et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 627–639

Head Matter:
No. 1,151.
Heirs of Burney vs. John T. Ludeling et al.
1. That is not a consent decree which is rendered by the court on its own motion. Chaffe vs. Hayuer, 31 Aim. 594; Wooten vs. LeBlanc, 32 Ann. 692.
2. It is not a good objection for a defendant to urge against a suit by an heir for the recovery of an interest in the property thereof that his ancestor’s succession has not been fully administered.
3. Nor is it a good objection for him to urge that all the heirs have not been joined.
4. In such a suit, previous tender is not a condition precedent to its institution. All that equity requires is that defendant be permitted to sot up his demands in reconvention.
5. All of theparties to a sale are necessary parties to a suit to annul it.
APPEAL from tlie Fifth District Court, Parish of Ouachita. Richardson, J.
O. J. é J. 8. Boatner ancl Stone & Murphy for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Budding cD Stillman and Stubbs & Russell for Defendants and Appellees.

Opinion:
I.
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
The defendants request that the plaintiffs' appeal be dismissed on the ground " that the judgment appealed from was rendered at the request and with the consent of the plaintiffs," and as justifying it, they cite us to an entry that appears in the minutes of the lower court.
It is as follows, viz : "On motion of plaintiffs' counsel the judgment heretofore rendered, dismissing this suit, is set aside, and the court now renders a judgment dismissing the suit. See decree.''
The decree referred to is in the following form, viz.: " In this cause it is ordered that the judgment rendered sustaining the exceptions filed by defendants, with leave to amend, is set aside, and it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that said exceptions be sustained, and plaintiffs' suit dismissed at their cost."
This judgment bears the same date as that of the entry on the minutes quoted. At the same time the appeal was granted in open court.
These facts, taken chronologically, clearly indicate that, while it was upon the motion of plaintiffs' counsel that the judgment first rendered was set aside, it was upon the order of the court that the suit was dismissed. Wootan vs. Leblanc, 32 Ann. 692; Chaffe vs. Hayner, 31 Ann. 594.
The motion is denied.
II.