Succession of Hickman
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the District Court of East Peliciana, Ratliff, J.
1Opinion of the Court
Meerick, 0. J.
This case was before us last year. See 12 An. The present appeal is from the judgment upon an opposition to the final account of the administrator.
We will consider the items objected to by opponents in the order in which they have presented the same in the brief.
I. The first item opposed is that allowed the attorneys for defending the former suit and filing the present account. It is clear that the services of counsel in the former suit were for the individual advantage of the administrator, and as he was condemned to pay the costs, there is no pretence for charging counsel fees…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Alexander v. RichardsonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1868
- Baker v. GarlickSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1844
3Cited by3 opinions
- Succession of FilhiolSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
- Succession of FontanoSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1941
- Louisiana Railway & Navigation Co. v. LawrenceLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1925