Case Name: SUCCESSION OF WILLIAMS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-11-03
Citations: 149 La. 197
Docket Number: No. 23821
Parties: SUCCESSION OF WILLIAMS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 197–215

Head Matter:
(88 South. 791)
No. 23821.
SUCCESSION OF WILLIAMS.
(Nov. 3, 1920.
On the Merits, May 30, 1921.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staf.)
1. Appeal and error &wkey;>780(2) — -Appeal cannot be dismissed as to heirs who disclaimed interest in share in controversy.
An appeal in a suit by heirs for their interests in a decedent’s estate and‘for partition, which involved a controversy as to a one-third share in the estate, cannot be dismissed as to appellees, who disclaimed- any interest in 'the share in controversy, if they were necessary parties to a determination of the question of law involved.
2. Appeal and error <&wkey;8ll— Suit for possession of interest in decedent’s estate and for partition is entitled to preference.
An appeal in a suit by some of the heirs of the dec'edent’s estate to recover possession of their interests and for partition is one which is entitled to preference, and may be advanced for argument under Court Rule 10, § 3 (136 La. x, 67 So. ix).
On the Merits.
3. Absentees e&wkey;>6 — Heirs of an heir who had disappeared and was not known to be dead cannot he put into unconditional possession.
In a suit to recover possession of interests in a decedent’s estate, the children and sole heirs of an heir of decedent who had disappeared nine years before decedent’s death and had not since been heard from, who could not prove that the absent heir was dead, are not entitled to unconditional possession of his share of the estate, but are limited to provisional possession with security under the terms of Civ. Code, art. 57.
4. Absentees <&wkey;6 — Statute for conditional possession of interest of absent person applies to interest inherited after his disappearance.
Civ. Code, art. 57, authorizing the court to put the presumptive heirs of a person who had been absent for five years into conditional possession of the estate which belonged to the absentee at the time of his departure, authorizes the presumptive heirs of such absentee to be put into provisional possession of the absentee’s interest in the- estate of his father who died after the absentee’s disappearance.
5. Absentees <&wkey;6 — Statute requiring claimant to prove existence of person through whom right accrued does not apply to heirs of disappeared person.
Civ. Code, art. 76, requiring a claimant of a right accruing to a person whose existence is not known to prove that such person existed at the time wheb the right accrued, applies only where the right is claimed by virtue of the existence of the person at the time it accrued, and does not apply to a claim, by the heirs of a person who had disappeared, to the interest of such absentee in the estate of his father, who died after the absentee’s departure, since such claimants were entitled to possession absolutely if the absentee died before his father, or had died since, and were entitled to provisional possession if he were still alive.
6. Absentees <&wkey;>6 — Statute relating to succession of person whose existence is not known does not ppply against his children.'
Civ. Code, art. 77, providing that in case a succession shall be opened in favor of a person whose existence is not known the inheritance shall' devolve exclusively on those who would have had a concurrent right with him to the estate, or on those on whom the inheritance should have devolved if .such person' had not existed, means that the right shall devolve upon those -who would have inherited jointly with the absentee if it were known that he existed, and who would have inherited by right of accretion his share 'of the succession if it were known that he did not exist when the right of inheritance occurred, and docs not give to the brothers of an absent heir the absentee’s interest in their father’s estate to the exclusion of the children of-the absentee, who would be entitled to the absentee’s share whether he died before or after the right of inheritance occurred.
7. Absentees &wkey;>6 — Brother of absent heir cannot claim to exclusion of children without proof of absentee’s surviving the ancestor.
Even if Giv. Code, art. 77, be construed to give to the brothers of an absent heir the interest of the absentee in their father’s estate to the exclusion of the absentee’s children, the brothers are precluded by article 76 from making, a claim to such interest without proof that the absentee was living when the right of inheritance occurred.
8. Absentees &wkey;>6 — Statute authorizing provisional possession by heirs of absentee applies to absentee whose existence was not known.
Oiv. Code, art. 57, allowing presumptive heirs to take, provisional possession of the estate of an absentee on proof that he has not been heard of for 5 years, applies, in view of the title and chapter headings in which it is found, to the case of an absentee whose existence is not known. ■
Appeal from Twentieth. Judicial District Court, Parish -of Terrebonne; Philip .H. Gilbert, Judge.
In the matter of the Succession of George Williams. Suit by Robert J. Williams and others against George Williams, Jr., and others, for possession of tlieir interest, in the estate of decedent and for partition, in which Mrs. Robert Collins and another intervened, claiming an interest. From a j’udgment'placing the interveners in provisional possession of the interest claimed, the named defendant and the interveners appeal.
Motion by appellees to dismiss appeal as to them denied. Motion to advance the case granted, and judgment' affirmed. '
J. Each Spearing, of New Orleans, for appellant George Williams. '. '
Hugh S. Sutliotf, of New Orleans, and Butler & Wurzlow, of Houma, for interveners.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss or Advance. '
DAWKINS, J.
This is a contest between Geo. Williams, Jr., and the children of his two brothers, Dan and Fred Williams, over the estate of his father and their grandfather, Geo. Williams, Sr., deceased. It appears that Dan Williams disappeared several years ago, has not been heard from since, and his children are claiming his interest in their grandfather's property; while Geoi Williams Jr., contends that because Dan Williams' death has not been proven so as to entitle his children to inherit by representation, his interest should go to him (Geo. Williams, Jr.), and the children of Fred who is dead. The heirs of Fred Williams have appeared by motion in this court and alleged that they claim no interest in the share of Dan Williams, but merely the rights,of their father, and for this reason there is no controversy between them and any one' else in the litigation. They pray that the appeal be dismissed as to them, and, in the alternative, that the cause be advanced as a preference matter.
The judgment of the lower court recognized Geo. AYilliam's, Jr., and the children of Fred Williams, deceased, and the absentee, Dan Williams, as the owners of a one-third interest each in the succession, directed a partition, and that the children of said Dan Williams be placed in provisional possession of his interest. George AVilliams, Jr., has appealed, and all of the other parties to the litigation are necessarily,made appellees.
•No authority has been cited in support of the proposition- that these appellees can be dismissed from the appeal, and we know of none. It is true that they, have by this motion renounced any • Interest in the rights of their uncle, Dan Williams, but the question is 'one of law, to a determination of which we' think' they are necessary parties. They are not before this court of their own choice, but hare been brought here by the appeal of their uncle, and must remain until the issue to which they are necessary in the capacity of appellees has been determined.
However, the case is a preference one, and should be advanced. Hule 10, § 3.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the motion to dismiss be and is hereby denied, and this case is ordered advanced and placed up.on the preference docket, as provided by law and the rules of this court, upon appellees filing and serving their brief in compliance with said rule.