Case Name: Succession of EBERLE et ux.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1924-02-25
Citations: 155 La. 603
Docket Number: No. 24274
Parties: Succession of EBERLE et ux.
Judges: By Division C, composed of OVERTON, ST. PAUL, and THOMPSON, JJ.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 604–604

Head Matter:
(99 South. 464)
No. 24274.
Succession of EBERLE et ux.
(Feb. 25, 1924.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Executors and administrators <@=3l7(5), 20(10) —Succession!; discretion of judge in appointing administrator wilt not be disturbed unless manifestly wrong.
Wh^re two brothers were contestants for the administration of the successions of their parents, an appointment made by the trial judge is in his discretion under Rev. Civ. Code art. 1043, and will not be disturbed where not manifestly wrong; no disqualifications of the appointee appearing, and there being no overwhelming reason why the other or both should have been appointed.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Hugh C. Cage, Judge.
Application by iTrank Eberle to be appointed administrator of the successions o-f Prank Adams Eberle and of Magdalena Meyer Eberle, deceased, opposed by George Eberle. Prom an order appointing applicant as administrator, George Eberle appeals.
Affirmed,
J. Zach Spearing and E. P. Kleinert, both of New Orleans, for George Eberle and others.
L. H. Gosserand, and W. O. Hart, both of New Orleans, for Prank Gordon Eberle.
By Division C, composed of OVERTON, ST. PAUL, and THOMPSON, JJ.

Opinion:
ST. PAUL, J.
Prank Eberle applied to be appointed administrator of the successions of his father and mother. George Eberle opposed the application, praying that he be appointed instead of his brother, and in the alternative that both be appointed. The trial judge appointed Prank, and George appeals.
We find nothing in the evidence to show that Prank Eberle is in any way disqualified to be appointed, or showing any overwhelming reason why George should be appointed in his stead, or why two administrators should be appointed instead of one. In other words, we find nothing therein to show that the trial judge abused the discretion which he undoubtedly had under the circumstances. R. C. C. art. 1043.
In Succession of Chalar, 39 La. Ann. 308, 1 South. 820, this court said:
"When two beneficiary heirs are contestants for the administratorship of the ancestor's succession in the choice of the administrator a large discretion is vested in the judge who makes the appointment and, unless manifestly wrong, his conclusion will not be disturbed." (Italics ours.)
Decree.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.