Case Name: Succession of WATT
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1909-01-18
Citations: 122 La. 952
Docket Number: No. 17,041
Parties: Succession of WATT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 951–965

Head Matter:
(48 South. 335.)
No. 17,041.
Succession of WATT.
(May 25, 1908.
On the Merits, Jan. 18, 1909.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Application fob Additional Time to Complete Transcript.
The application, with the clerk’s certificate, for further time within which to file the transcript of appeal, was received and filed.
2. Appeal and Error (§ 596*) — Proceedings por Transper — Making op Transcript— Time por — Extension.
On the first day’s session thereafter the court acted upon the application. The delay is computed from the day that the application was filed.
The transcript was filed in time.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2620; Dec. Dig. § 596.*]
On the Merits.
3. Appeal and Error (§ 792*) — Dismissal on Court’s Own Motion — Grounds.
The appeal will not be dismissed ex pro-prio motu, save for very good reasons in the mind of the court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3137-3141; Dec. Dig. § 792.*]
4. Agreement Among Heirs.
The heirs undertook to settle their differences regarding their respective shares. Agreements were entered into, .to which they are held, and which restrict the issues to an amount stated.
5. Executors and Administrators (§ 506*)— Final Accounting — Evidence — Sufficiency.
The ex parte letters contain nothing of a convincing character. The other testimony, after these many years, is not certain as to facts and throws very dim light upon the issues. It presents nothing sufficient upon which to predicate a judgment.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. § 2177; Dee. Dig. § 506.*]
6. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 506*)— Final Accounting — Objections — Burden of Proof.
Tliere is a dearth of pleading and of proof. It was incumbent upon opponents to prove their demand.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 2170-2175; Dec. Dig. § 50G.*]
7. Corroboration Against Opponents.
The transactions of years ago, although shown only by ex parte statements, have a tendency to confirm certain testimony of opponents’ only witness against their position as opponents.
8. Descent and Distribution (§ 109*) — Collation— Persons Liable to Make.
There is reason to infer that the father of the claimants (opponents) had received his inheritance. If he had not, the situation does not enable them to insist upon collation.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Descent and Distribution, Gent. Dig. §§ 419, 420; Dee. Dig. § 109.*]
9. Appeal and . Error (§ 170*) — Presentation and Reservation oe Grounds of Review-Questions Not Considered Below— Prescription.
If opponents are entitled to anything, it is as creditors. Their claim from that point of view is prescribed.
[Ed. Note — For other cases, see Appeal and Error. Cent. Dig. § 1035; Dec. Dig. § 170.*] (Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Thomas C. W. Ellis, Judge.
In the matter of the succession of Mrs. H. L. Watt. From a judgment rejecting the demand of certain heirs, and ordering that a certain sum left on deposit be distributed among other heirs, John Watt and others appeal.
Amended, and, as amended, affirmed.
Dinkelspiel, Hart & Davey, for appellants. Benjamin Rice Forman and' Horace Roberts, for appellees Lewis and the Howcott children. Cage, Baldwin & Crabites, for ap-pellees Wheeler children.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
BREAUX, C. J.
The appeal was returnable here on March 16. 1908.
On that day the time was extended by the court to the 6th of April.
On the 6th of April appellant presented a motion, with accompanying affidavit of the clerk of the district court, setting out that additional time (15 days) was necessary to enable him to complete the transcript.
This motion was filed by the clerk of this court, as is usual, at the time it was presented.
On the 13th of the month of April the motion was called in open court and the 15 days' delay applied for was granted.
As the court was not in session, no action could be taken in court before the last-mentioned date.
The question is whether filing the application for time within which to prepare the transcript in the clerk's office and bringing the motion to the clerk's attention as one to be acted upon in open court was sufficient to obtain the delay.
In the case which counsel for appellee cites in support of his motion to dismiss the appeal the legal delays had already elapsed and it follows that the time within which to apply for delay had already expired.
It is not the case here.
The application was timely, but it had not been acted upon by the court, as it was not in session.
The following is in point:
"The court was not in session. The application was received and filed later. On the first day's session, the court acted upon the application and computed the delay from the day that the application was filed."
In other words, the court declined to' dismiss the appeal on a motion similar to the one filed by the appellee in this case. State ex rel. Fairchild v. Stillman, 31 La. Ann. 162; Chretien v. Poincy, 33 La. Ann, 132; Lacroix v. Bonin, 33 La. Ann. 119.
For reasons stated, the motion is overruled.
On Application to Dismiss the Appeal.
The appellees in their brief on other grounds urge that the order of appeal is not such as required and that the appeal bond is fatally defective.
The complaint is that the appeal was taken by John Watt "and others," not named in the motion or bond.
No motion has been made to dismiss the appeal upon that ground. There was a motion interposed for the purpose of amending the judgment upon another ground, which is now before us.
In any case, whether the "and others" include the four heirs or not, the appeal of John Watt is before us. No motion being made to dismiss, we still have the issues before us for decision. State v. Callac, 45 La. Ann. 27, 12 South. 119.
, There was an agreement entered into between counsel to the end of reducing the bulkiness of the transcript, and in order that •the clerk would copy only such documents as .are needful to a decision of the issues. It is as broad as any agreement of the kind can be made. It has the appearance of conclusiveness as relates to the appeal itself.
The appellees must aver specially the informality in the order of the appeal or in the bond. The grounds to dismiss will not be supplied by the court on suggestion in the brief, particularly when the parties have entered into an agreement to facilitate the appeal; and, besides, the appellee without the least reserve moved to amend the judgment. As he asks for the amendment of the judgment, he has scant ground to ask for the dismissal of the appeal.
The court in substance held that there must be a special plea filed to dismiss, to justify a dismissal of the appeal on the ground stated in this ease. State v. Callac, 45 La. Ann. 27, 12 South. 119; Webb v. Keller, 39 La. Ann. 55, 1 South. 423.
We therefore take up the statement of facts.