Case Name: Succession of L. C. Gohs.-Oppositions to Account of Executor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1885-05
Citations: 37 La. Ann. 428
Docket Number: No. 9317
Parties: Succession of L. C. Gohs.—Oppositions to Account of Executor.
Judges: Mr. Justice Fenner concurs in this opinion.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 428–434

Head Matter:
No. 9317.
Succession of L. C. Gohs.—Oppositions to Account of Executor.
This Court lias no jurisdiction over an opposition to an executor’s account when the amount claimed is less than $2000, and tlie fund to be distributed does not exceed that amount; and on its own motion must dismiss the appeal.
A creditor has no right to oppose each and every item, on a tableau of distribution, in a thoroughly solvent succession, where, after an amount amply sufficient to meet his claim has been retained, the payment of such items cannot possibly affect or injure him.
Such an opposition, for want of interest in tbe opponent, is frivolous on its face and cannot arrest the distribution, except so far as may be necessary to provide for payment of the claim, if ultimately allowed.
Where the fund thus arrested docs not exceed $2000, an appeal does not lie from the judgment on the opposition to this Court, which is devoid of jurisdiction.
A PPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. jTJl. Rightor, J.
J. I). Goleman and J. P. Hornor and F. W. Balcer for Opponents and Appellants.
B. R. Forman for Defendant and Appellee.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
Widow Louisa Fritz and J. N. Folwell, by separate oppositions to the final account of the executor of Gohs' succession, seek to be recognized as creditors respectively of said succession—one for $1095, and the other for $250 ; and appeal from a judgment rejecting their demands.
The amount in the hands of the executor remaining for distribution, is $1345, the rest having been previously distributed under a prior judgment, homologating the executor's account wherein not opposed, and which judgment has become final, no appeal from the same having been taken.
Therefore, whether we consider the amount of the demands sought to be enforced or the amount of the funds for distribution, it is plain that this Court is without jurisdiction.
The case comes clearly within those of Succession of Duran, 34 Ann. 585, and Succession of McDowell, 35 Ann. 1025.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.