Case Name: Succession of Walter O. Winn. On petition of John S. Mayfield to destitute Mary E. Richards, executrix
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1875-11
Citations: 27 La. 687
Docket Number: No. 5629
Parties: Succession of Walter O. Winn. On petition of John S. Mayfield to destitute Mary E. Richards, executrix.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 687–689

Head Matter:
No. 5629.
Succession of Walter O. Winn. On petition of John S. Mayfield to destitute Mary E. Richards, executrix.
Iohn S. Mayfield, alleging that' he is a creditor of the succession of Walter O. Winn, for reasons stated,'prayed for the removal of the executrix from her trust. It appears from the testimony that in 1862 the executrix sold a portion of a certain plantation belonging to the succession by private sale. It also appears that she is not now a resident of the State, and that she has not given a power of attorney/ duly reoorded as required by law, to any one to represent her. These are sufficient grounds for destituting her of her trust.
APPEAL from the parish court, parish of Rapides. Sullivan, J.
Thos. MeOay, JR. JE. Hunter, Merrielc, JRaee & Foster, for plaintiff and appellant. M. Ryan and J. Q. White, for defendant and appellee.

Opinion:
Ludeling, C. J.
J. S. Mayfield, alleging that he is a creditor of the succession, for reasons stated, prayed for the removal of the executrix from her trust. The executrix alleged that Mayfield had no interest in the succession, and denied that he was, a creditor thereof. There was judgment in favor of the defendant .and plaintiff has appealed. A motion has been made to dismiss this appeal, on the ground that the judgment was rendered by consent. The judgment does not so state, and the entry on the minutes, relied' upon by the appellee, does not support the position when taken as a whole. It recites that the exception was disposed of, and "by consent of parties the court proceeded to render the following judgment," that is, they consented that the court should render judgment on the merits immediately.
The motion to dismiss is refused.
It appears that the notes of Mayfield were acknowledged in November, 1865, since which time there has been no interruption of prescription. The notes were therefore prescribed when the first suit of Mayfield was filed, in 1873. Consequently, he has no interest or right to interfere in the affairs of the succession.
It is ordered that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed, with costs of appeal.