Case Name: Succession of A. G. Payne
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1873-03
Citations: 25 La. Ann. 202
Docket Number: No. 4560
Parties: Succession of A. G. Payne.
Judges: Justices concurr.ng: Ludeling, Taliaferro, Howell, Wyly, Morgan.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 202–206

Head Matter:
No. 4560.
Succession of A. G. Payne.
Where the husband joins tli© wife in her petition, this is sufficient authorization to her to sue.
Where the motion was for a suspensive appeal, and the one granted was merely devolutive, if the appellant submits to this modification of his demand, the appellee, not being injured by it, can not complain.
Where the motion to appeal was made in the name of the husband and the wife, the authorization to appeal is sufficiently established, and the appeal bond can not be objected to, when made out in the name of the husband and the wife and is signed by both.
Where plaintiff was not an heir; Held — That she had no right to attack a will in so far as it related to the disposal made by the testator of his property, but that she might sue to annul it in so far as it interfered with her rights to have the tutorship of her grand children.
It is unnecessary to decide the question raised whether a testament is valid as a will by nuncupative public act, when it is good as a nuncupative will under private signature.
Where the objection to the validity of such a will was, that the person who wrote and read, it was not designated the: ein as a witness, but as a notary;
Held — That there is no law which declares that a man, because he is a notary public, is not a good witness to a will; and there can be seen no reason why he should not be.
A will can be set aside only when the law itself pronounces it to be null on accouut of the want of compliance with those formalities which are declared to be sacramental.
Where A was appointed by will tutor to minors, and at the same timo the testator declared that the care, management and raising of his children should be left in the hands of Miss B:
Held — That this was not appointing her tutrix; that this was merely giving her the personal care of the children, whilst the legal control of the persons and property of the minors was vested in A, who could as tutor, when he chose, remove them from her care.
APPEAL from the Probate Court, parish of East Feliciana. Pipián, J.
W. F. Kerncm and C. F¡. Schmidt, for appellants. K. A. Cross and F. J). Brame, Hace, Foster á Merriclc for appellees.
Justices concurr.ng: Ludeling, Taliaferro, Howell, Wyly, Morgan.

Opinion:
Morgan, J.
Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal on several grounds, which we will consider in the order in which they are presented.
First — That there is no testimony in the record showing that the plaintiff was authorized to institute and prosecute this suit.
The husband joins the wife in the petition; this is sufficient authorization.
Second — That the appeal granted from the main action was a devolutive appeal, while the motion was for a suspensive appeal.
The fact is as stated ; but if the appellant submits to this modification of his demand, the appellee, not being injured by it, can not complain.
Third — The testimony does not show that plaintiff was authorized by her husband either to institute the suit or to take the appeal.
We have already said that he authorized her to sue by joining her in the suit, and as the motion for appeal was made in the name of the husband and the wife, we consider the authorization to appeal sufficiently established.
Fourth — -That the order of court does not fix the amount of the •appeal bond in the injunction suit if suspensive.
The order of appeal does fix the amount of the bond. It is fixed at one hundred and fifty dollars, and the bond is made out in the name of vthe husband and the wife, and is signed by them both.
The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.