Case Name: The Heirs of Jacob Hoover vs. Z. York and E. J. Hoover, Executors. A. G. Ober, Intervenor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-05
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 573
Docket Number: No. 8541
Parties: The Heirs of Jacob Hoover vs. Z. York and E. J. Hoover, Executors. A. G. Ober, Intervenor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 573–579

Head Matter:
No. 8541.
The Heirs of Jacob Hoover vs. Z. York and E. J. Hoover, Executors. A. G. Ober, Intervenor.
The heirs of a deceased testator sue to recover his estate from the universal legatees, alleging that the last will of the deceased was null and void for certain causes of nullity which are set forth in the petition.
Judgment is rendered decreeing the will valid, and the title of the'universal legatees, or of1 '• those holding under them, to the estate sued for, a good one, the latter having been made parties to the suit. ,
After this decision another suit is instituted by the legal heirs against the executors alone, propounding the same causes of nullity as before, and praying that the order probating ‘ the will be annulled and set aside, and the will declared null and void. The owner of the estate, by title derived from the universal legatees, who was a defendant in the former suit, intervenes in this last suit and resists, the pretensions of the plaintiffs on the same grounds as before.
Held, that the judgment in the first suit could be pleaded as res adjudicate to the demands of » the plaintiffs in the last or preseut one, ‘and that this plea was properly sustained.
APPEAL from the Ninth District Court, Parish of Concordia. Sough, J.
Geo. S. Sawyer for Plaintiffs and Appellants :.. . . ,
In consequence of the intervention of Ober, tbe case consists of two branches; yet there are, but two questions involved in this appeal, viz; prescription and res judicata.
1. There is iio'prescription known to the law'which bars an action to avoid the illegal pro* bating of ,a testament; the proceeding binds nobody not a party to the eame. 2 An. p. 743; 13 An. p. 375 ; 4 An. p. 527; 11 Rob. p 196; IRob.p. 116* 6 An.p. 104; 25 An. p. 85,
2. No prescription bare aa action to avoid a testament on the ground of a “ secret" eubsti* tution or fidd commiseum'; it contravenes a prohibitory law. 0. 0. Arts. 1520, 1491, $ C. -N. Art 119; Provost vs Provost, 13 An. p. 375. “ Quod ab initio uitíosum e&t non potest ■ tractu temporiq convalesced."
3. No prescription can cure the absolute nullity of a pretended title to property acquired at a bankrupt sale through collusion aud fraud, such as the concealment of personal prop* erty in the hands of this purchaser by the bankrupts in their surrender, the false ac* knowledgtnent of indebtedness by the bankrupts to the interveuor Ober, and the sup* pression of just credits due by him. See answer to Ober’s intervention, Roe. pp. 214, 246 * Bankrupt Law and Pract. in Bankruptcy, 5th ed. by Bump, pp. 442, 444; Kerr on F. aud M., pp. 247, (Sos. 7 et seq.) 284, 442, 444.
4. , These peremptory exceptions being in the nature of demurrers, must be tried ou the alie* . gations of plaintiffs in their pleadings, unless specially disproved by defendant’s evidence. 9 An. p. 265; 14 La. 421; 12 An. 190 } 13 An. 138, 177, 205; 14 An. 137; 2 Ken. Dig. p. 1169., (No. 2.)
5. The plea of res judicata cannot be maintained ; the judgment in the former suit was not for the same thing; the demand was not founded on the 'same cause of action. This suit is not between the same parties, nor formed by them against each other in the same cat pacity. C. C. Art. 2286. The two suits did not originate in or before the same courts or court of concurrent juiisdiotíon. C. P. Art. 335, (C. C. 2); 5Rob.p.l5> 2An.p.840j 3 An. p. 531; 24 An p. 331.
6. Points not raised or passed upon in the former suit are not res judicata in the latter.
The question raised by Ober’s intervention in this suit, as to the validity of his bankrupt-title, was not at issue by the pleadings in the former »uit. 9 hi. 521 j 5 An. 105; 7 S. 430 * 17 La. 92; 3 Rob. 171; 1 Ken’s Dig. p 764, (Nos. 13, 20); 21 An. 355 ; 22 An. 610 ; 24 An. p. 332, strictly in point.
F. X). White, J. G. Leach and F. L). Saunders for Defendants and Intervenov, Appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
The motion contains the following grounds :
1. That defendant abandoned his first appeal, and could not legally take a second appeal.
2. That the transcript of appeal Was not seasonably filed.
First. The first appeal taken by plaintiffs was made returnable to this Court on the second Monday of February, 1881, the return day fixed for appeals from the Parish of Concordia, where the ease was tried. The transcript was filed at that term of this Court, but dismissed on motion of the appellee, on account of a defective transcript. The appeal was devolutive, and within the year from the date of the original order granting the appeal, the plaintiifs applied for and obtained a second appeal.
It is contended that' the failure of the Appellants to perfect their first appeal and its consequent dismissal, showed an abandonment of the appeal, and should be so construed. We do not think so. Th© abandonment, of an appeal to debar a subsequent appeal must be a voluntary abandonment. It would be a forced construction of the law on the subject to hold that an irregularity in bringing up an appeal, even though it resulted from an error or fault on the part of the appellant, constituted a voluntary abandonment of his appeal, express or constructive. This is negatived by the fact that, upon the dismissal of the appeal, the appellants proceeded to take and prosecute another. The second appeal, being taken within the year prescribed for devolutive appeals, was in time.
Second. The second appeal, the present one, was made returnable on the second Monday of February, 1882. At that term of Court and within the legal delays the appellants applied for an extension of time, which was granted, quoting from the order, " until the next term of this Court sitting for the trials of appeals from the Parish of Concordia."
The first day of that term was the 12th of February, 1883. The transcript was filed on the 14th, and we think in time. It was within the term. A fair construction of this word " term," which the extension covered, would be the time within which an appeal so returnable could be filed, and would include the return day and the three subsequent days of grace.
An appeal should not be dismissed unless the right thereto has been clearly forfeited, and in case of doubt, the appellant should have the benefit of it and the appeal maintained.
We have been pointed to no authority that would justify the dismissal of the appeal on either ground urged. The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.