Case Name: The State on the relation of Jaine Remendo, v. The Judge of Second District Court of New Orleans, praying for a Mandamus
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1865-06
Citations: 17 La. Ann. 189
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State on the relation of Jaine Remendo, v. The Judge of Second District Court of New Orleans, praying for a Mandamus.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 189–189

Head Matter:
The State on the relation of Jaine Remendo, v. The Judge of Second District Court of New Orleans, praying for a Mandamus.
No testament can have effect unless it lias been presented to the juclgo of the Parish in which he died, if he died within the State; therefore, an executor in possession of a will has the right to have a nuncupative will registered and executed, although the estate had been fully adminis* tered and the property delivered into the possession of the legal heir, it is not necessary that he should, nor can he, resort to a direct action of nullity, until the testament is ordered to be executed.
XÍ. PPEAL from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Thomas, J.
George L. Bright for relator.

Opinion:
Hyman, C. J.
The relator asks the court to grant a mandamus on the Judge of the Second District Coiu-t of New Orleans, requiring him to order the execution and registry of the nuncupative testament by public act of Pedro Bemendo, deceased, and to deliver letters testamentary to him, as pu'ayed for in his petition to the judge.
Bespondent, in answer, alleges, that the estate of the deceased had been fully administered, and that the property of the succession had been delivered by a judgment of tbe court into the possession of the legal heir, and that the only remedy of the relator would be a direct action to annul said judgment.
What is required of the judge is a mere preliminary proceeding, and not a judgment binding on those who are not parties thereto. 2 An. 726.
It appears, from the will, that relator is an instituted heir, and was appointed executor.
Until ordered to be executed, the will is without effect (C. O. 1637), and relator has no right of action in consequence of the will.
Thus, while the judge announces to relator that his only right is a direct action of nullity, he prevents him from pursuing this right, under the rule, by refusing to order the same to be executed, and thus relator is left without remedy,
It is therefore ordered, that a peremptory mandamus issue in the name of the State of Louisiana, ordering said judge to comply with demand of relator.