Legal Opinion

Succession of Guillemin

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided June 15, 1847PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Canon, 7.

1Opinion of the Court

The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Rost, J.

This litigation.arose upon the account rendered'by the administrator of the succession of the .late 1. F. A. Guillemin, .and has its origin in the following facts-:

The marriage,contract entered into .in Paris, in.the year 1812, between the deceased and Caroline de Pier-ray, his first wife, contains this clause:

“La future épouse apporte au dit manage, et se constitueen dot .tousles biens et droits & elle appartenant, consistent en une -somme de 25j000 francs, argent comptant, -et-en ses habits, hardes, linge, et bijoux, de-valeur de 5,000…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hill v. BowmanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1840
  2. Norès v. CarrabySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1843
  3. Dimitry v. PollockSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1838
  4. State v. Judge of the Parish CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1840

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Daube v. BrunoSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1986
  2. Kobuszewski v. ScriberLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1987
  3. Roberson v. GoldsmithSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1912
  4. Union Title Guarantee Co. v. PerkinsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1927
  5. Daube v. BrunoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1985

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API