Case Name: KREMER et al. v. KREMER
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1908-02-03
Citations: 121 La. 484
Docket Number: No. 16,951
Parties: KREMER et al. v. KREMER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 484–502

Head Matter:
(46 South. 600.)
No. 16,951.
KREMER et al. v. KREMER.
(Feb. 3, 1908.
On the Merits, April 27, 1908.)
1. Appeal — Dismissal—Grounds oe —Want oe Actual Controversy — Controversy Remaining.
The parties to the partition have not admitted that all those who claim as heirs have an actual interest. '
2. Same — Disagreement About Methods and Terms.
The parties do not agree as to the mode of the partition, nor as relates to terms.
3. Same — Jurisdiction.
There remains an issue to be determined on appeal, sufficiently made out to justify the court in declining to dismiss the appeal.
4. Same — Not Admitted as Mere Decree oe Partition Among Co-owners.
There is no consent among the parties as can be of avail in matter of jurisdiction on appeal.
On the Merits.
5. Husband and Wipe — Community Property-Administration.
Nicholas Kremer died after his wife. His estate consisted entirety of community property. At his death the community owed debts. The affairs of that community had never been settled or liquidated. The heirs of both husband and wife were the children, issue of their marriage. One of the sons was appointed and confirmed as administrator of his succession. In that capacity he was charged with the administration and settlement of the entire estate of the deceased, including therein the community property and affairs. The administration of the succession of the husband under such circumstances carried with it the administration and settlement of the wife’s interest in the community. Having been appointed administrator of the husband, he can by no acts of his own divest himself of the administration of the entire property and relieve himself from liability therefor. There is no occasion for his seeking to obtain a division of the property into two parts, one-half belonging to the wife’s heirs, in order to settle the community. His duty and powers as administrator authorized him under orders of the court to sell at probate sale so much of the property as was required to pay debts. So long as there are debts of the community unpaid, the heirs of the wife have no right, and the administrator has no authority, to turn over the property to the heirs for partition among themselves, and the court should not give its sanction to this being done.
6. Courts — Allotment of Cases to Different Divisions of District Court — Constitutional Provisions.
The precise scope and effect of article 134 of the Constitution of 1898 touching the allotment of cases to the different divisions of the civil district court for the parish of Orleans have given rise to much controversy, and the decisions of this court have turned to a great degree upon the exact stage which the proceedings had reached when objections to the same were advanced, and to a consideration of the results, injurious or harmless, to parties which would flow from too rigid an application of the provisions of that article. -The court has, however, recognized that those provisions will be enforced when objections to a departure therefrom are timely made, as they were in this instance. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish, of Orleans; George Henry Théard, Judge,
Action for partition by Michael Kremer, administrator of the succession of Nicholas Kremer, and on behalf of himself and of his coheirs, against Lizzie Kremer. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals, and plaintiffs move to dismiss the appeal.
Motion overruled, and judgment reversed and rendered.
Carroll, Henderson & Carroll, for appellant. Nicholas EugSne Humphrey and Leon Valsin Guillotte, for appellee intervener. Meyer Samuel Dreifus, for other appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
BREAUX, C. J.
The grounds of the motion filed by plaintiffs and appellees are that the judgment decrees the partition of property of which the ownership, it is averred, is admitted by the parties; and, further, the contention is that this court has decreed that no appeal lies from such a judgment, as it causes no irreparable injury; and, besides, that the parties have an absolute right to a partition.
AYe take up for decision the first ground of the motion; that is, in effect, that the parties have agreed to the judgment of partition.
AYe do not find that the parties have by their pleadings or by special agreement expressed consent to the judgment rendered, or that they have so pleaded as to show that they no longer can appeal. The record ¿s made up shows that there are issues between the parties. AYe can best dispose of the question by referring to the record, in which we find that the late Mrs. Anna Maria Gartner, wife of Nicholas Kremer, died in April, 1904, leaving paraphernal and community property as per inventory to an amount within the jurisdiction of this court. Her husband opened the succession, and in addition qualified as tutor of Joseph C. Kremer, one of their children.
In the year 1907 Nicholas Kremer, husband of Anna Maria Gartner, died. His succession was opened, and Michael Kremer, his son, was appointed administrator.
An inventory was taken, showing, as per this inventory, that all of the property belonged to the community which had existed between him, Nicholas Kremer, and his predeceased wife.
A few months after Michael Kremer, as one of the heirs of Nicholas Kremer, joined by other heirs of said Nicholas Kremer, brought suit against one of his heirs, to wit, Mrs. Marshall, for a partition of the community property.
We state as in place here, and as forming a part of the statement of the case, that Valentine Kremer, one of the heirs of age of Nicholas Kremer and wife, died in January, 1907. The succession was opened. The widow of Valentine Kremer applied to the court and was confirmed as natural tutrix of Augustine Kremer. She intervened in the partition proceedings alleging that her ward had an interest as an heir and was a necessary party to the partition.
The defendant, in her answer to the intervention, denied the rights of the intervener.
The court decided in favor 'of the intervener and against defendant, and ordered a partition to be made.
The issues preclude the idea of consent to-a partition to be made in the manner proposed by plaintiffs.
The defendant in the district court pleaded the exception of no cause of action and prematurity, that make up an issue which we cannot overlook in matter of jurisdiction.
' The defendant denies that she accepted the community, and urges that a partition cannot be made as proposed as relates to the community.
We have seen that there was an inteivener who claims as an heir.
The defendant controverted in her answer to the intervention the right of the intervener to become a party to the partition, and denied her heirship.
The judge of the district court sustained the demand of the intervener, and decided against defendant's position in this respect.
The right to an appeal is all that is involved before us at this time, and it follows that the issues can be considered only with reference to that right.
The decision confidently cited by the appellees to sustain their grounds is not pertinent, for it decides that, there being no issues left for the appeal, it would be doing a vain thing to allow the appeal.
That is not the case here. But, not to leave at this time the cited case, we quote from it:
"If the case involved a controversy as to the fact of ownership, or as to the mode of partition, possibly under some circumstances an appeal might lie." Reynolds v. Reynolds, 43 La. Ann. 1118, 10 South. 303.
In the case here there is a controversy as to the fact of co-ownership as to one of the alleged owners, and. there is controversy about the mode of partition, and there are circumstances rendering it proper not to dismiss the appeal on the motion presented.
The other decisions cited by appellees in support of their motion are equally as inapplicable.
It only remains for us to overrule the motion.
It is overruled.