Case Name: William G. Vincent vs. Mrs. Camilla M. Phillips
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1895-06-03
Citations: 47 La. Ann. 1238
Docket Number: No. 11,648
Parties: William G. Vincent vs. Mrs. Camilla M. Phillips.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 1238–1244

Head Matter:
No. 11,648.
William G. Vincent vs. Mrs. Camilla M. Phillips.
The appellant's claim is for more than $2000.
He, in addition, pleads for the nullity of the sale of valuable property of the succession. The probability that in the settlement of the succession the appellant's proportion of the assets will be less than the minimum jurisdictional amount of this court is not cause for dismissal of the appeal.
The value of the property, the sale of which the appellant seeks to annul, is the test of jurisdiction. Katz &Barnettvs. Grill, 43 An. 1041.
A tutrix administering a succession, without opposion, has authority to stand in judgment in a suit to dissolve a sale by the resolutory condition. Bryan vs Atchison, 2 An. 462.
It devolves upon the creditors to protect their rights by intervening in the suit, and they have no cause of complaint of the tutrix, defendant, for not notifying them. Tertrou vs. Comeau, 28 An. 633.
Under the terms, of the contract, by the failure to pay one of the instalments the other instalments not matured became due and exigible. The action was, therefore, not premature.
The exercise of the resolutory condition retroacts and places matters as if the sale had never existed. The plaintiff, vendor of the property, is entitled to the revenue made by the defendant debtor during the time the latter owned the plantation.
The creditor, on the other hand, must return the amounts of purchase price received, with interest.
The crop of 1894 was received by the plaintiff, creditor. Its value can not be charged to the debtor, it having been received in kind by the creditor. To that extent the judgment appealed from is amended.
Under the prayer for general relief the date from which interest begins to run may be considered as alleged.
The judgment of the District Court fixed the value of the improvements made by the vendee on the place, as shown by the testimony.
A PPEAL from the Fourteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Pointe Coupée. Talbot, J.
William W. Leake and Branch K. Miller for Plaintiff, Appellee.
Dinkelspiel & Hart and Yoist & Claiborne for Metropolitan Savings and Pledge Bank, Appellant.
Argued and submitted on briefs.
Opinion handed down, June 3, 1895.
Rehearing refused, June 29, 1895.
On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was deliverd by
Breaux, J.
This case was remanded in order to ascertain whether or not the succession was insolvent and the appellant had an appeal-able interest. Ante p. 1216.
It was proved that the succession is insolvent, and that the appellant is a creditor in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court.
Before this court the appellee, William G. Vincent, urges that the appeal should be dismissed for the reason that the appealable interest of the Metropolitan Bank, appellant, is below the minimum jurisdictional amount of this court.
Taking the inventory of the assets of the succession as a basis of total active, and deducting from that total the amount of the acknowledged debts of the succession (including appellant's), the appellee argues that the amount to be paid plaintiffs, in any contingency, will be considerably less than two thousand dollars, although his claim is for a larger amount.
The amount of appellant's claim being within this court's jurisdiction, we think that the inventory is not conclusive evidence of the value of the property, and that the debts may be considerably reduced in course of the settlement of the succession. The jurisdiction is determined by the amount of the claim and not by the amount not yet determined, for distribution. Morever, the court has jurisdiction of appellant's demand to annul the sale, presenting issues entirely within the jurisdietion'ot this court.
The property was appraised for forty-five thousand dollars.
The nullity sued for for, if decreed, will be in tbe interest of the creditors. Katz & Barnett vs. Gill, 43 An. 1041.