Case Name: Succession of William Heffner
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1897-02-15
Citations: 49 La. Ann. 407
Docket Number: No. 12,369
Parties: Succession of William Heffner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 407–422

Head Matter:
No. 12,369.
Succession of William Heffner.
1. Where an executor having made, as executor, payments of claims placed on his account, these charges were contested helow, and the question is the correctness and legality of such payments, the executor has a direct official and personal interest in sustaining the payments, and he has a right to appeal from a judgment on such subject matter adverse to him.
2. Where one who has qualified as executor is brought into court in his official capacity to defend an attack upon the validity of the will which he is executing, he has a right to employ counsel to defend such suit, and the services of such counsel are properly chargeable to the estate.
3. Where a plaintiff, seeking to annul a will, has proceeded against the executor named in the will and the testamentary heirs and special legatees instituted therein, and has obtained judgment, setting aside the will with costs against all the defendants in solido, the executor who has paid these costs in full is entitled to charge them up in full against the succession in his account,
4. Payments made by an executor, without order of court, to special legatees under a will subsequently annulled, will not be recognized.
5. One ceases to be executor when the judgment annulling the will appointing him such becomes final.
6.If, from a scrutiny of the final account which a curator or executor has rendered on the demand of the heirs, he shall appear to owe a balance, he shall be sentenced to pay it to the heirs with interest from the day of judgment. (O. P. 1007.)
A PPEAL from the First Judicial District Oourt for the Parish of Caddo, Land, J.
Wise <& Herndon for Executor, Appellant.
Harrison & Aston and D. T. Land, for Opponents, Appellees.
Argued and submitted January 20, 1897.
Opinion handed down February 15, 1897.
Statement of the Case.
William Heffner died in the parish of Caddo on the 20th day of February, 1895, having disposed of his property by what purported to be a last will and testament. The instrument was probated as such, and James Heffner, who was named therein as executor, qualified thereunder.
On September 14, 1895, Jackson Heffner et al. instituted a suit to annul the will, and to recover as legal heirs three-fourths of the estate. Service was made on James Heffner, individually and as executor. The suit resulted in the District Court in a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, annulling the will and ordering them to be placed in possession of three-fourths of the estate. From that judgment James Heffner individually and as executor appealed. On appeal the judgment was affirmed. 48 An. 1088, Heffner et als. vs. Heffner et als. Jackson Heffner and the other plaintiffs in the suit to annul the will then ruled the executor to file an account. The executor filed his account.
In his petition accompanying the account the accountant averred that the succession of Wm. Heffner had been fully administered in accordance with the will, with the exception of the real estate which was still undisposed of, and the balance due the four sons of Jackson Heffner, amounting to one thousand dollars. He prayed that notice be given of the account, which he declared was his final act, and that he be discharged.
The account filed was as follows:
James Heffner, Executor, in Account with Succession of Wm. Heffner.
Real estate as shown by inventory................................................................. $1,020 00
Notes as shown by inventory....................................................................... 8,830 01
Note on Sam Butterfield not inventoried................................................ 2,«00 00
Cash on hand as shown by inventory............................................................... 2,707 07
Total............................................................................................................ $18,847 07
Or.
Privileged Debts.
Funeral expenses............................................................................................. $161 OO
F. A. Leonard, notary’s fees .........................................................................
F. A. Leonard, clerk’s fees in succession.......................................................
Clerk’s fees m suit of Jackson H«-ffner et al. vs. James Heffner et al..........
To deposit in Supreme Court in suit of Jackson Heffner et al. vs. James Heffner et al ....................................................................................... 2<?00-
To y mount paid for brief in said suit.......................................................... 5 00
ToR. J Looney, attorney, for probating will........................................... 25 00
To Wise & Herndon, attorneys, for defending suits of Jackson Heffner
et al. vs. James Heffner et al.......................................................................... 500 00
Amounts paid under terms of Will.
To amount paid Jackson Heffner’s sons........................................................ 1,000 00‘
“ “ “ Mrs. Mary Wellborn.. ................................................... 2, 21 51
“ <• “ Ollie Akard........................................................................... 2,92151
“ “ “ Laura Booth ............................................................................. 2,921 51
Jackson Heffner and his co-plaintiffs filed an original and art amended opposition to the account, setting up in the first opposition, as grounds:
1. The executor failed to account for the interest on the notes set forth in his account and for the rents and revenues of the real estate belonging to said succession.
2. Because the debit side of said account foots up fourteen thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven dollars, and not thirteen thousand eight hundred and forty-seven dollars and seven cents as stated in the account.
3. Because the item of one hundred and sixty-one dollars funeral, expenses and the item of twenty-five dollars fees for probating will are not due and owing by the succession.
4. Because the amount of the items of costs in succession and-attorney’s fees are not stated and are not due by said succession.
5. Because the amount of items of costs in suit of Heffner et al. vs. Heffner et al. are not stated and are not due by the succession _gnd James Heffner has been condemned personally to pay said costs- and as executor wrongfully and fraudulently disposed of eight thousand seven hundred and sixty-four dollars of the moneys and property of said succession, and because the defence of said suit was-unnecessary and against the interest of said succession, as said, executor well knew.
6. Because the item of five hundred dollars attorney’s fees to Wise & Herndon for defending suit of Heffner et al. vs. Heffner ef al. is not due and owing by said succession for the reason that Wise & Herndon were employed and represented James Heffner and the other legatees individually, and the defence of said suit was unnecessary, against the interest of said succession and involved a pure (question of law, with the authorities all in favor of the plaintiffs, as ■the said Wise & Herndon well knew; and further, because if said fees are due by said succession, which was denied, the same were exorbitant and excessive.
7. Because the executor was not entitled to a credit for the sum of one thousand dollars claimed to have been paid to Jackson Heffner’s sons, and two thousand nine hundred and twenty-one dollars claimed to have been paid to Mary Wellborn — a like amount to Mrs. Akard, .and a like amount to Mrs. Booth, because—
,(1) Said sums were not paid out by the executor; (2) because if ■said sums were paid out by the executor they were made under the terms of a will which was an absolute nullity on its face; (3) because plaintiffs in the suit of Heffner vs. Heffner obtained a final judgment against James Heffner individually and as executor, and against the parties to whom said payments were claimed to have been made, recognizing them as the owners of three-fourths of the estate of Wm. Heffner, and ordering them to be put in possession of same, which' said judgment they pleaded as res judicata on the question of the ownership and possession of said estate; (4) because prior to the pretended payments opponents made a demand on James Heffner, individually and as executor, for three-fourths of the estate, and pointed out to him the nullity of the will — that if the executor paid said sums to said parties he did so with full knowledge of the nullity of the will and of the rights of the opponents, and he had wrongfully and fraudulently disposed of eight thousand seven hundred and sixty-four dollars belonging to the succession. They prayed that their opposition be maintained, and that they have judgment against James Heffner individually and for three-fourths of the property an(| money of said estate not accounted for or disposed of by him, with ten per cent, per annum interest thereon and for general relief.
In the amended opposition they averred that James Heffner claimed to be owner of one-quarter of the property of the succession in his hands as executor, basing the same on the fact that he was one of the heirs at law of Wm. Heffner, and, as executor, he proposed to distribute the property in his hands in the proportion of one-fourth to himself, individually, and three-fourths to opponents. That they opposed said claim and said proposed distribution for the reasons:
1. That James Heffner, executor, was bound'to account to opponents as owners for three-fourths of said estate, which he had failed to do, the property accounted for being less than one-half of the amount due to opponents. 2. That the executor had wrongfully and fraudulently disposed of a large amount of property belonging to said estate, as set forth in the original opposition filed, and had thereby rendered himself personally responsible to said succession and opponents, and was not entitled to receive any part of said succession as heir before he paid what he owed to the succession — his share as heir being compensated and extinguished pro tanto by the amount due by him to said succession. They prayed that in the event judgment be rendered in their favor against James Heffner, individually, that the amount of said judgment be declared compensated and extinguished pro tanto by the amount of the share of said James Heffner as heir of William Heffner in and to the property of said succession now in his hands as executor, and that said executor be ordered to deliver to opponents, as owners, within ten days from the adjournment of court the entire property of said succession now in his hands as executor, less all legal claims against the same that might be allowed by the court. They prayed for all other orders and decrees necessary in the premises.
The District Court rendei’ed judgment increasing the amount of the debit side of the account by the sum of one thousand and twenty dollars, this being merely the correction of a clerical error in the statement. It sustained the items of one hundred and sixty-one dollars for funeral expenses, the item of twenty-five dollars for attorney fee for probating the wiil, and an amount of nine dollars and sixty-five cents for succession costs and notarial fees. It rejected the amounts of items of costs in the suit of Heffner vs. Heffner, and also the item of five hundred dollars for services rendered by Wise & Herndon as attorneys in defending the suit of Heffner vs. Heffner. It rejected the claim made by the executor for credit for amounts paid to Mrs. Mary Wellborn, Ollie Akard, Laura Booth and the four sons of Jackson Heffner as special legatees under the will. It decreed “ chat Jackson Heffner and his co-opponents do have and recover judgment against James Heffner individually, and as late executor of the succession of William Heffner, the full sum of ten thousand two hundred and thirty-eight dollars, being three-fourths of the balance (in his hands), with legal interest from date of judgment until paid. It further ordered and decreed that opponents be recognized as the legal owners of three-fourths of the real estate described in the inventory with the right to sue for a partition of the same and to demand in said proceeding the collation of what may be due them by James Heffner, the owners of the remaining one-fourth interest reserving their right to execute their judgment according to law.
The court at the same time sustained an opposition to the account which had been filed by Harrison & Aston claiming to have paid taxes due by the estate for such amounts and been subrogated to the rights of the State.
After said judgment was rendered James Heffner “individually” moved to set aside the judgment rendered against him for the reason that he individually was no party to said suit and made no appearance therein, and further, because said judgment was rendered in chambers without his knowledge or consent. The court overruled the motion, stating that under Act No. 72 of 1884 no motion in the nature of a new trial was permissible, as it was made the duty of the judge at the same time as reading the decree to grant the order of appeal — that the minutes would show that the judgment was rendered in chambers pursuant to consent of parties who were represented by their counsel. The motion to set aside the judgment for the reason that it was rendered at chambers without his consent was overruled.
Opponents moved to dismiss the appeal from that part of the judgment rejecting against said succession the claim of Wise & Herndon for attorney’s fees, and rejecting claim for the costs of that suit, and from that part of the judgment condemning said executor personally in favor of opponents. Because said Wise & Herndon, and the parties to whom said costs are due, have not appealed, and the executor has .no capacity to' appeal in behalf of parties whom he has placed on his account as creditors, and whose claims have been opposed and rejected by the court.
2. Because James Heffner has furnished no bond personally, but solely as executor, and as executor can not appeal in his official capacity from a judgment against him personally.
The bond furnished by James Heffner for an appeal reads: “We, James Heffner, executor Win. Heffner estate, as principal, and S. H. Johnson as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the clerk of tint First Judicial I).strict Oom t in the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars,” and declaies the condition of the bond to be that “ whereas the above bounden James H finer, executor, has applied for and obtained an order for a devolutive appeal from the judgment lately rendered against him by the First Judicial District Court, for Caddo parish, in the case of the succession of Win. Heffner, opposition to final account * * * n »w. therefore, if the said James Heffner, executor, shall well and truly prosecute hi- said appeal, etc. * * * then this obligation to be null and void, otherwise to remain, in full force and effect.”

Opinion:
On the Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
"The opinion of the court was delivered by
Nicholls, C. J.
Appellant contends that he has paid the parties whose claims were opposed, and he is vitally interested himself in having their claims sustained. He calls our attention to the fact that the capacity in which he acted was as executor and not as administrator, and to the decision in the matter of the succession of Ames, 33 An. 1317, in which a distinction is drawn in respect to the questions raised in the motion as to his right of appeal between an executor and an administrator. He also directs our attention to the fact that, while the judgment is against him personally, it is also against him as executor.
This ease does not present the question of the right of an administrator or executor, who has filed an account or tableau of proposed payments on which he has placed certain parties as creditors, to appeal in his official capacity from a judgment of the District Court rejecting the claims on an opposition made to the claims, as being really succession claims. We have decided a number of times that if the parties aggrieved by the decision do not themselves appeal, it is no part of the duty of the administrator or executor to champion their rights. In this case the executor has already made, as executor, payment of the claims which were contested below, and it is the legality and correctness of such payments made by him which were litigated below. Under that phase of the question the executor had a direct official, and also personal, interest in sustaining the payments if he could.
The second clause of the motion to dismiss refers, we presume, to that portion of the judgment appealed from by which opponents were decreed " to recover of James Heffner, individually and as late executor of the succession of William Heffner, the sum of ten thousand two hundred and thirty-eight dollars, being three-fourths of said balance (shown by the account filed), with legal interest from this date (date of judgment) until paid, and by which opponents were recognized as the legal owners of three-fourths of the real estate described in said inventory, with the right to sue for a partition of the same and to demand in such proceeding the collation of what might be due them by James Heffner, the owner of the remaining fourth, reserving, however, their right to execute this judgment according to law."
The judgment from which the executor has appealed was one rendered upon an opposition filed to his'account as executor. It undertook to fix and determine the rights of the opponents to the funds in the hands of the executor, and to direct what disposition should be made by the executor. The executor had a direct official as well as personal interest in the subject matter of that judgment which carried with it a right to appeal from it. What issues can be legally raised and what legally passed on on this appeal, we can determine and declare after hearing. The motion to dismiss is overruled.