Case Name: Succession of REEMS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-10-20
Citations: 134 La. 1033
Docket Number: No. 20,031
Parties: Succession of REEMS.
Judges: PROVOSTY, L, absent on account of illness, takes no part.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 134
Pages: 1033–1039

Head Matter:
(64 South. 898.)
No. 20,031.
Succession of REEMS.
(Oct. 20, 1913.
On Merits, March 16, 1914.
Rehearing Denied April 13, 1914.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Executors and Administrators (§ 314*)— Distribution oe Estate — Sight oe Appeal.
An executor may appeal from a judgment which disturbs the proper distribution of the estate.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 1274-1297; Dec. Dig. § 314.*]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 14*) — Second Appeal — Dismissal—Distribution oe Estate.
Where, after an appeal by the executrices, the heirs under the will appeal from a judgment in favor of disinherited children who have filed an opposition to the account of the executrices, and the first appeal is maintainable, that of the heirs will be dismissed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 48-57; Dec. Dig. § 14.*]
(Syllabus by the Court.) '
On the Merits.
3. Descent and Distribution (§ 48*) — Disinheritance oe Child — Intention.
In order for a parent to disinherit a child, the parent must state the ground of disinherison in the will, and then the proponents of the will must prove that the cause of the disinherison really existed at the time that the will was made. .
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Descent and Distribution, Cent. Dig. § 131; Dec. Dig. § 48.*]
4. Appeal and Error (§ 1010*) — Descent and Distribution (§ 48*) — Decision—Disinheritance oe Children — Successions.
The law does not favor the disinherison of children except for good cause amply proved, and, where the evidence relating to the existence of the cause for disinherison is not conclusive, and the trial judge, who has heard all the evidence, has reached the conclusion that the grounds of disinherison have not been proved, this court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court, unless it can be shown that the judge of the lower court utterly failed to appreciate the value of the evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3979-3982, 4024; Dec. Dig. § 1010;* Descent and Distribution, Cent. Dig. § 131; Dec. Dig. § 48.*]
5.Wills (§ 55*) — Testamentary Capacity— SUEEIOIENCY OE EVIDENCE.
The evidence as to the sanity of the testatrix at the time of the confection of the will satisfies the ’ court that she had testamentary capacity at the time of its confection, and that all the formalities required by law for the making of a nuncupative will by public act were complied with by the notary.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 137-158, 161; Dee. Dig. § 55.*]
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; E. K. Skinner, Judge.
Succession of Mrs. Eugene S. Reems. Disinherited children of testatrix filed an opposition to the account of executrices, and, from judgment in their favor, the executrices and the heirs appeal. Motion to dismiss appeal by executrices overruled, and motion to dismiss appeal by heirs sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
Martin H. Manion, of New Orleans, for appellants. Dirikelspiel, Hart & Davey, of New "Orleans, for appellee Wm. G. Reems. R. B. Logan, of New Orleans, for appellee August L. Reems.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
Two of the children of the decedent having been disinherited in her will, the executrices ignored them in the account presented by them to the court distributing the estate among the heirs, and these disinherited heirs filed an opposition to the account, contesting the validity of the disinherison. Judgment went in their favor, and the executrices appealed.
Motion is made to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the executrices are without interest, and therefore without right, to appeal.
The settled jurisprudence is that an executor may appeal from a judgment which disturbs the proper distribution of the estate in his charge.
Succession of Ames, 33 La. Ann. 1317; Succession of Allen, 48 La. Ann. 1036, 20 South. 193, 55 Am. St. Rep. 295; Succession of Nicholson, 5 La. Ann. 359.
In the cases cited by the appellees, to wit, Payne v. Dejean, 32 La. Ann. 889, Succession of Mausberg, 37 La. Ann. 126, and Heirs of Byland, 38 La. Ann. 756, the administrator of a succession was seeking to appeal in the name of the succession, and at its expense, from a judgment rendered in its favor against him.
After the motion to dismiss had been filed, the heirs under the will took an appeal of their own. This they did in order that they might not find themselves without an appeal in case the motion to dismiss the appeal taken by the executrices in their interest should be maintained. Motion is made to dismiss this second appeal, on the ground that the trial court was divested of all jurisdiction over the case by the first appeal. This ground must be sustained, and the second appeal dismissed. By their appeal through the executrices, who are merely their representatives, the heirs removed the case from the trial court to this court, thereby divesting the trial court of all control over the case, so far, at any rate, as granting them an appeal from the judgment rendered in it .is concerned.
The motion to dismiss the appeal taken by the executrices is therefore overruled, and the motion to dismiss the appeal taken by the heirs is sustained, and the latter appeal is dismissed at the cost of the appellants.