Case Name: Succession of POPP. POPP v. INHERITANCE TAX COLLECTOR
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-06-30
Citations: 148 La. 663
Docket Number: No. 23958
Parties: Succession of POPP. POPP v. INHERITANCE TAX COLLECTOR.
Judges: DAWKINS, J., dissents.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 663–667

Head Matter:
(87 South. 508)
No. 23958.
Succession of POPP. POPP v. INHERITANCE TAX COLLECTOR.
(June 30, 1920.
On the Merits, Jan. 3, 1921.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1921.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Appeal and error &wkey;>l4(2) — Judgment awarding specific amounts after remand by Supreme Court held appealable.
Where on appeal a judgment is set aside and the case remanded, to be proceeded with in accordance with the views expressed by this court, the judgment thereafter rendered by the trial court awarding plaintiff specific amounts within the appellate jurisdiction is appealable.
On the Merits.
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
2. Appeal and error <&wkey;l 194(2)— Remand held to foreclose discussion on points covered by opinion;/‘final decree.”
Where on appeal the judgment was set aside and the case remanded “to be proceeded with in accordance with the views herein expressed,” such decree did not operate as a final decree, but had the effect of closing the discussion upon every point covered by the views expressed in the opinion upon which decree was founded.
[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Final Decree or Judgment.]
O’Niell and Dawkins, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Oivil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Hugh C. Cage, Judge.
Proceeding by the succession of John F. Popp against the Inheritance Tax Collector. Judgment for the Collector, and the succession appeals. Motion to dismiss appeal overruled, and judgment
affirmed.
See, also, 146 La. 464, 83 South. 765.
Walter S. Lewis, of New Orleans, for Mrs. Rebecca Crant Popp.
Edward Rightor, of New Orleans, for Thomas Connell.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
MONROE, C. J.
When this case was before this court upon a previous occasion (146 La. 464, 83 South. 765), the various issues presented were considered, and conclusions were reached and expressed in regard to them, but the conclusions were not made ex-ecutory by the decree, which reads;
"The judgment appealed from is therefore set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial court to be proceeded with in accordance with the views herein expressed; the succession to pay the costs of the appeal."
It is evident that, as thus formulated, the decree called for further proceedings in, and a judgment by, the district court, and equally evident that it devolved upon that tribunal to determine the character of the proceedings contemplated by the decree of this court, and the specific decree to be rendered by it as based thereon. The court ruled, after hearing argument, that it would base its judgment on the pleadings in the case and the opinion and decree of this court, thereby overruling the contention of defendant's counsel'that the decree of this court should be construed as a mandate directing that the cause be tried de novo and after a regular assignment for trial. The judgment as rendered was in accordance with the trial judge's interpretation of the views expressed in the opinion of this court; and defendant has appealed therefrom. Appellee moves'to dismiss the appeal on the ground that all the issues involved therein were determined by the opinion and decree heretofore handed down and are not to be further considered.
The judgment appealed from, however, possesses all the attributes of a final judgment appealable to this court, and the question whether the trial judge erred in adopting the basis upon which it has been predicated or in any other respect is one for the review of which the appeal is' allowed, and which is not properly before this court upon a motion to dismiss. The motion is therefore overruled.