Case Name: State of Louisiana, ex rel. L. C. Rasberry, v. Parish Judge of the Parish of Bossier
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1874-05
Citations: 26 La. Ann. 385
Docket Number: No. 5204
Parties: State of Louisiana, ex rel. L. C. Rasberry, v. Parish Judge of the Parish of Bossier.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 385–385

Head Matter:
No. 5204.
State of Louisiana, ex rel. L. C. Rasberry, v. Parish Judge of the Parish of Bossier.
Where the issue made by a rule to show cause was, whether a judgment rendered against the succession, administered by the relator should be paid and satisfied out of the indi* vidual estate of the administrator, on the ground that the administrator refused or neglected to pay it out of the funds of the estate, and that he failed or refused to file an account of his administration,* and where the decision was that execution issue against the individual property of the administrator, to be seized and sold to satisfy the judg ment against the succession, it is clear that the right of appeal lies from such a decision.
Application for a mandamus, directed to the parish judge of the parish of Bossier.
John Bay, Fort <& McDonald, for relator.

Opinion:
Taliaferro, J.
The relator complains that he is refused an appeal from an order of the defendant making absolute a rule taken against the relator to show cause why execution should not issue against his own property, and that it be seized and sold to pay and satisfy a judgment rendered against him as administrator of the succession of L. F. Steele, in course of administration in the parish of Bossier.
The grounds stated by the respondent for refusing the appeal, we think, are insufficient. The issue made by the rule was, whether a judgment rendered against the succession administered by the relator should be paid and satisfied out of the individual estate of the administrator, on the ground that the administrator refused or neglected to pay it out of the funds of the estate, and failed or refused to file an account of his administration. The decision was that execution issue against the individual property of the administrator, and that it be seized and sold to satisfy the judgment against the succession. It is clear the respondent has the right to appeal.
It is therefore ordered that the rule be made absolute, and the respondent ordered to grant the appeal prayed for. -