Case Name: KERLEC et al. v. NEW ORLEANS LAND CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1911-04-24
Citations: 130 La. 111
Docket Number: No. 18,805
Parties: KERLEC et al. v. NEW ORLEANS LAND CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 130
Pages: 111–119

Head Matter:
(57 South. 647.)
No. 18,805.
KERLEC et al. v. NEW ORLEANS LAND CO.
(April 24, 1911.
On the Merits Feb. 12, 1912.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Afpeal and Error (§ 429*) — Notice of Appeal — Waiver.
After appellees have asked for the dismissal of an appeal on the ground that all the necessary parties have not been made parties to the appeal, and allow appellant to cite the necessary parties, an appellee who has accepted service on the petition of appeal cannot be heard to urge that the service of notice of appeal should have been made before the return day.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig'. §§ 2168-2172; Dec. Dig. § 429.*]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 329*) — Parties— Bringing in New Parties — Dismissal — Delay.
Where an appellant has been ordered to make certain persons parties to an appeal, the appeal will not be dismissed on the ground of delay unless there is an unreasonable delay, especially where the one asking for the appeal has accepted service on the petition of appeal.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 329.*]
On the Merits.
3. Executors and Administrators (§ 29*)— Appointmeno^-Denial.
Where one has qualified as the administrator of _ a succession and has performed acts of administration, he will not be heard to deny that he was the administrator.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other eases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. § 173; Dec. Dig. § 29.*]
4. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 98*) — Rescission by Vendor — Acceptance op Benefits —Estoppel.
Where one has received part of the proceeds of a sale and has accepted her attorney as a debtor for the balance due her, and has never returned, or made an effort to return, the money so received, she will be estopped from denying- that there has been a sale.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Dec. Dig. § 98.*]
5. Executors and Administrators (§ 388*)— Succession Sale — Rights of Purchaser.
One who purchases property in good faith at a sale ordered by the court having jurisdiction of the succession which owned the property need not look beyond the validity of the order of court authorizing the sale. If the order on its face is valid, the innocent purchaser will be protected.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 1573-1582; Dec. Dig. § 388.*]
6. Executors and Administrators (§ 380*)— Succession Sale — Action to Vacate— Fraud.
An order for the sale of succession property being in the nature of a judgment, a suit to set aside the sale made under the order, on the ground that the order was obtained by fraud, must be brought within the year from the discovery of the fraud.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Dec. Dig. § 380.*]
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; T. O. W. Ellis, Judge. .
Action by Marie ' L. Kerlec and others against the New Orleans Land Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.
Motion to dismiss denied, and judgment affirmed.
James B. Rosser, for appellants. Chas. Louque, for appellee.

Opinion:
BREAUX, C. J.
Appeal of Mrs. Armand Kerlee and others from judgment rendered in the civil district court.
Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal alleging that some of the appellees have not been cited.
The order of appeal was dated November 2, 1910.
In due time thereafter, the record of appeal was filed in this court.
The day after it had been filed, appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal was filed.
The court sustained the motion to dismiss the appeal, and remanded the case in order that the parties to the judgment might all be made parties.
This order was made on the 31st day of January, 1911.
In March following, the appellees accepted service of the petition for an appeal and of the order of appeal.,
Appellant asks that it he' decided that, as relates to service, the law has been complied with, and that it be decreed that all parties appellees are now properly before the court.
The New Orleans Land Company, appellee, through learned counsel, urges .that a citation of appeal should always be served before the return day of the appeal, and that it was now too late, although the parties have accepted service as before mentioned.
This appellee further urges that this court is without jurisdiction ratione materias.
We take up the first ground, to wit, that appellant has lost her right of appeal because of delay.
As relates to this ground, we cannot agree with learned counsel.
There were parties plaintiff and defendant before the court when it was ordered that all appellees be made parties.
There was no extraordinary delay after the court's order had been issued granting-leave to the appellants to make other parties to the appeal.
There were a number of appellees; one of the appellees did not reside in this city.
By this acceptance of service the parties who made themselves parties to the appeal cannot be heard to urge that plaintiff and appellant has lost her right of appeal by her delay in matter of citation of appeal.
It is true, as contended, that the motion to dismiss was filed after the return day, but no mention was made of that fact at the time that the motion to dismiss (because some of the appellees were not made parties) was filed.
The only complaint is that all the appellees were not parties.
When it does not appear that the neglect to make parties is owing to some intention to take advantage, this court has always permitted the making of other parties to the appeal.
In Succession of Romero, 25 La. Ann. 534, parties were made by order of this court.
The right lias never been denied since.
Now as to the want of jurisdiction suggested by appellees in argument only:
That will have to be considered later. The only question now is as to the parties to the appeal.
Eor reasons stated, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that those who accepted service in this case and waived citation are now parties to the appeal as appellees, and as such are before the court. It follows that the application of plaintiff and appellant is granted in this respect, and that the argument of defendant and appellee in opposition is not sustained.