Case Name: State ex rel. A. F. Hickman vs. the Judge of the Second District Court, Parish of Orleans
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1876-12
Citations: 28 La. Ann. 935
Docket Number: No. 6495
Parties: State ex rel. A. F. Hickman vs. the Judge of the Second District Court, Parish of Orleans.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 935–936

Head Matter:
No. 6495.
State ex rel. A. F. Hickman vs. the Judge of the Second District Court, Parish of Orleans.
where a creditor of a succession opposes items of the executor’s account, which aggregate more than five hundred dollars, he may appeal from the decision of the court dismissing his opposition, even though his individual claim against the succession is less than five hundred dollars.
Had the decision been against the executor, he could have appealed, and the rule is1 that where one of the parties may appeal, the adverse party may also.
APPEAL from the Second District Court, parish of Orleans. Tissot, J.
Julien A. Seghers, for relator.

Opinion:
Wvly, J.
Relator, a creditor of the succession of L. F. Generes, opposed various items of the account rendered by the executors of said succession, amounting in the aggregate to largely over five hundred dollars. From a judgment dismissing the opposition and homologating the account, relator sought for and was denied a suspensive appeal. Thereupon he applied for this mandamus to compel the judge to grant him an appeal.
The answer of the judge is substantially that relator's interest in the matter in dispute does not exceed five hundred dollars. In the succession of W. H. Gale, 21 An. 487, this court said: "Where creditors of a succession are litigating their rights contradictorily with each other an appeal will lie, though the claim of each creditor may not amount to the sum of five hundred dollars, if the value of the succession exceed that sum." Here the items opposed by relator largely exceed five hundred dollars. If the succession had been cast, we apprehend the executors could have appealed. The rule is, where one party has the right of appeal, his adversary in the litigation ought to have the same right.
It is therefore ordered that the mandamus herein be made peremptory.