Case Name: Smith & McKenna v. Edwin Charles
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1875-05
Citations: 27 La. 503
Docket Number: No. 4379
Parties: Smith & McKenna v. Edwin Charles.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 503–505

Head Matter:
No. 4379.
Smith & McKenna v. Edwin Charles.
The motion to dismiss the appeal of G-lover & Odendahl, on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is below five hundred dollars, must be overruled, the proceedings in the case being considered in the nature of a conoursus.
The heir being considered seized of the succession from the moment of its being opened, the right of possession which the deceased had, continues in the person of the heir, as if there had been no interruption, and independent of the fact of possession, and each of the heirs becomes an undivided proprietor of the effects of the succession for the part or portion coming to Mm, which forms among the heirs a community of property as long as it remains undivided, and the recording of a judgment against an heir must be held to afiect all mortgageable property thus owned by such heir.
APPEAL from the Fifth District Court, parish of Orleans, heauJ. J. mont, J.
J. Magioni and T. Gilmore & Sons, for plaintiffs and appellees. Randolph, Singleton & Browne, for C. H. Lawrence & Co., and G-lover & Odendahl, appellants. Charles F. Claiborne, for Vose Bros. J. J. Finney, for Finney & Byrnes.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
TaliaeerRO, J.
This motion is made on the ground that the amount in controversy is less than $500, and that this court is therefore without jurisdiction.
Smith & McKenna sued Charles for $686 92, and obtained judgment for $636. Execution was issued and Charles' interest in his father's succession was seized and sold for the sum of $1750. A rule was taken ou the sheriff to show cause why he should not pay over to the plaintiffs the amount of their judgment out of the proceeds, and they made parties to the rule; several other creditors of Charles having judgments against him of record, among them Glover & Odendahl, the appellants, who claimed to be paid in preference to the others on the ground of priority of record. Their judgment is for $251, with a small amount of interest.
The judgment on the rule gave precedence to three of the creditors over Glover & Odendahl, decreeing to them and to Lawrence & Co. the remainder pro rata after the first three creditors were paid. From this decree Glover & Odendahl and Lawrence & Co. have appealed. The motion is made to dismiss the appeal of Glover & Odendahl.
We regard these proceedings as in the nature of a concursus, and, therefore, conclude that the appellants have the right to appeal. 3 Rob. 5; 2 An. 189.
It is ordered that the motion to dismiss be overruled.