Case Name: Succession of THERIOT
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1905-03-27
Citations: 114 La. 612
Docket Number: No. 15,447
Parties: Succession of THERIOT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 611–619

Head Matter:
(38 South. 471.)
No. 15,447.
Succession of THERIOT.
(March 27, 1905.)
APPEAL — MOTION TO DISMISS — VAGUENESS — NUNCUPATIVE WILL — DICTATION — PREPARATION PROM MEMORANDA.
Motion to Dismiss.
1.Where the wife, as executrix and legatee, appealed from a judgment annulling a testament, the fact that her husband subsequently applied for the administration of the estate cannot be considered as an acquiescence in the judgment by the wife.
2. Alleged incompleteness of the transcript is no ground for dismissal of an appeal, where the certificate of the clerk shows that the record is complete, and the mover does not show that the alleged documents omitted are pertinent to the issues to be determined on the appeal.
3. An averment that the appeal bond “is not such as the law requires” is too vague and indefinite to be considered; nor will the court notice a paper presented by counsel purporting to be a copy of the original bond furnished. If the bond was incorrectly copied in the transcript, the remedy was by certiorari to correct the record.
On the Merits.
4. Where a presumptive heir residing in the parish is notified in writing, pursuant to article 935 of the Code of Practice, to attend, if he thinks proper, the opening and px-oof of an alleged testament, passed before a notary and three witnesses, such heir may oppose the execution and registx-y of the instrument presented on the ground of nullity resulting from the xionobservance of the formalities required by law in such cases.
5. On the trial of such opposition the testimony of the notary and subscribing witnesses is admissible for the purpose of proving that the formalities required by law wex-e not observed.
6. The Civil Code, art. 1578, declares that the nuncupative testament by public act “must be dictated by the testator and written by the notary as it is dictated.” Such dictation must be by words pronounced orally.
Whfere the testator handed to the notary written memoranda expressive of his wishes, saying “Oomme ca, comme ca” (Like this, like this), and nothing more, dux-ing the entire tex-m of the confection of the instrument, there was no dictation, and the testament is null.
7. Whex-e the proponent is the executx-ix named in the will, she represents in the probate proceedings all persons claiming under the testament ; and a legatee fox- a sum of money is not a necessary party to an opposition contesting the validity of the will on the ground of nonobservance of'legal formalities in its execution.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberia; T. Don Foster, Judge.
Proceedings by Mrs. Mary Ann Hartman to probate the will of Rosemond Theriot, deceased, in which Austin D. Theriot filed oppositions. From a decree sustaining the op positions, proponent and a special legatee appeal.
Affirmed.
Louis T. Dulany, for appellant Hartman. Walter Joseph Durand, for appellee.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
A document purporting to be the last will and testament of Rosemond Theriot in nuncupative form by public act was presented to the court for probate by Mrs. Mary Ann Hartman, named therein as a legatee and as executrix.
Austin D. Theriot, one of the presumptive heirs of the decedent, filed several oppositions to the prohate and execution of the testament, which, after trial, were sustained, and the will decreed a nullity. Mrs. Hartman and another special legatee appealed.
Opponent in this court filed a motion'to dismiss the appeal, and subsequently an answer, in which he prayed the affirmance of the judgment appealed from, with damages, as in case of a frivolous appeal. The answer set forth that the appellee did not waive or abandon his motion to dismiss.
Motion to Dismiss.
The first ground for dismissal is that the appellants have acquiesced in the judgment from which they have appealed. There is no proof of such acquiescence beyond a minute entry that the husband of one of the appellants had filed an application for appointment as administrator of the succession. The petition of the applicant is not before us as a part of the record or exhibits annexed to the motion to dismiss. But, if it were,-it does not show the acquiescence of the wife, the husband being a party to the probate proceedings only for the purpose of aiding, authorizing, and assisting the wife in the prosecution of her separate rights of property. The next ground is that the transcript is not complete. The certificate of the clerk is in the usual form, and the transcript contains everything affecting the issues raised hy the oppositions. Other and subsequent matters would have been'surplus-age. There is no suggestion of a diminution of the record affecting the issue. Succession of Townsend, 36 La. Ann. 536.
The next ground is that proper parties are not before the court. All the parties to the proceedings in which the judgment appealed from was rendered are before us as appellants or appellees. The last ground of the motion is that the appeal bond furnished "is not such as the law requires." This objection is too vague for consideration. The bond copied in the transcript is in the usual form. Counsel for plaintiff, when the case was called for argument, filed a document purporting to be a copy of the appeal bond. This document was permitted to be filed without prejudice.
It cannot be considered. If the copy of the bond in the transcript was not a true copy of the original, the errors should have been suggested and corrected in the usual manner. The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.