Case Name: Succession of Henry Cassidy
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1888-12
Citations: 40 La. Ann. 827
Docket Number: No. 10,070
Parties: Succession of Henry Cassidy.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 827–837

Head Matter:
No. 10,070.
Succession of Henry Cassidy.
Where, on the opposition to an executor’s account, the same has been amended by placing-the opponent thereon, as a creditor of the succession then under administration, the executor in his representative'eapacity has an appealable interest in the judgment on the- opposition, and if bo deems it unjust has not only the right to appeal but it is his duty to do so.
If the succession funds shown by the account for distribution exceed 82,000, this Court has jurisdiction, whatever be the amount claimed by the opponent.
A suit by an evicted purchaser against his vendor, or against the latter’s vendor, for indemnity on account of flic breach of the covenant of warranty, is not a real action. If the suit is brought against the succession of the vendor, the testamentary executor aloue is competent to defend the action ; hence it is not necessary that absent heirs be made parties.
At common law and under the laws of the State of Texas, an evicted purchaser may sue a remote vendor for recovery of his purchase price, without first exercising his recourse against his immediate vendor. Under that system “a covenant of warranty runs with the land.”
Jin Texas a purchaser may sue his vendor for a breach of the covenant of warranty without showing eviction under legal process, but in that case the purchaser must under proper averments establish the validity of the title which he recognizes as paramount to that transferred to him by his vendor, and must show an actual dispossession by virtue thereof. The rights and obligations of the parties to a sale executed in one State, of real estate situated in another, must be determined under the laws of the State in which the property is situated.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of. Orleans. Houston, J.
<T. O. Nixon, Jr , for the executor, Appellant:
■1. Ho action can be brought; by’a second vendor against a vendor upon a warranty, except the intermediate vendor be a party ; this results from the general rule providing that all persons through whom relief is sought be made parties. See Soixas vs King, 39 Ann. ; Hyde vs. CraAdick, 10 E. 387
■2. The second vendee has no action of warranty against the first vendor, except there be an express subrogation. Van Horght vs. Foreman, 1H. S. 352; Davison vs. Charbre’s Heirs, G H. S. 321; Smith vs. Wilson, 11 E. 522 ; Chambliss vs. Miller, 15 Ann. 713.
.3. The preponderance of evidence is that the opponents have never been evicted from the property in question; as up to the time the testimony was taken in this cause, by the admission of one of the opponents they were still rendering the land for taxation.
Farrar, Jonas <& Kruttsclmitt on die same side.
MerHcIc c6 MerrioJc for Opponents and Appellees:
‘The rights and obligations arising under an act passed in one State to be executed in another respecting the transfer of real estate in the latter, are regulated in point of form, substance uná validity by the laws of the State in which such acts are to have effect. 39 Ann. 952, Succession of Larendon.
A party purchasing laud in Texas is entitled to recover against a remote warrantor where his title has failed. Where the Supreme Court of Texas has decided that the land sold was not within a certain tract, and therefore that title thereto was in the State ; and whore the State surveyed the land for school and homestead purposes and sold the same to third persons, this constitutes an eviction.
Actual eviction is not necessary where superior title is shown to be in the State and the land is abandoned under the title in question. 36 Ann. 792, Filliiol vs. Cobb; 9 Wall900.
Warranty runs with the lands under the laws of Texas. 20 Texas, 623, Peck vs. Hinsley ; 51 Texas,'178, Westhope vs. Chambers.’

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
This is an appeal taken by an executor of a succession from a judgment rendered maintaining an opposition to his account.
There is a motion to dismiss the appeal—
1st. On the ground that the appellant (the executor) has no appeal-able interest;
2d. That the court has no jurisdiction ratione materia.
I.
The opposition to the account is in the nature of a suit against the-succession; that is, it is a demand on the part of the opponents to compel the executor to place them on the account as creditors of the succession for a designated sum. Their demand was recognized by the court as a just one, and the account amended by placing the claim on the account and ordering its payment.
Under this state of facts the executor, as the representative of the succession under administration, had certainly, in his representative capacity, an interest to appeal in behalf of the succession; and if was-his duty to do so if he believed the judgment was wrong. An executor has an interest to appeal whenever it is sought to wrest from him property belonging to the succession, or to impose a debt upon it which will diminish its assets in the fund to be distributed among the heirs or creditors; and his right to appeal exists independently of the heirs or creditors. Succession of McKenna, 23 Ann. 370; Succession of Chambury, 34 Ann. 25; Coyle vs. Succession of Creevy, Ib. 541.
The cases referred to in support of the motion only apply to the case of a contest of creditors over a fund in the hands of an executor or administrator for distribution, and the determination of which cannot add to or diminish the assets of the succession; as where the litigation only concerns the rights of opposing creditors to a certain fund or the right to be paid by preference out of it. In such case it is a matter of indifference to the executor which creditor succeeds, and he has no interest whatever in the judgment determining tjbe question.
II.
The amount shown by the account to be in the hands of the executor for distribution exceeds $2000, and this gives the Court jurisdiction.
Motion to dismiss is therefore refused.