Succession of Cox
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the First Judicial District Court, parish of Caddo. Taylor, J. - First — The claim of defendant in rule is not liquidated, and therefore cannot compensate that oí plaintiff, which is certain and admitted. 0. C. 2209; 9 A. 189. Second — Plaintiff claims a deposit entrusted to defendant by a confidential contract, and compensation is not permissible. 0. 0. 2956 ; 1 M. 847 ; 3 A. 514: 7 A. 53 ; 12 A. 257 ; 6 A. 40, 207. Third — Plaintiff is not liable for rents of…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the First Judicial District Court, parish of Caddo. Taylor, J. - First — The claim of defendant in rule is not liquidated, and therefore cannot compensate that oí plaintiff, which is certain and admitted. 0. C. 2209; 9 A. 189. Second — Plaintiff claims a deposit entrusted to defendant by a confidential contract, and compensation is not permissible. 0. 0. 2956 ; 1 M. 847 ; 3 A. 514: 7 A. 53 ; 12 A. 257 ; 6 A. 40, 207. Third — Plaintiff is not liable for rents of the property purchased by her, except from the date the succession of Cox, her vendor, restores or tenders to her the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
It appears from the pleadings and the evidence that after certain mortgaged real estate, belonging to this estate, had been ordered to be seized and sold by a District Court, and, after the sale ■thereof had been enjoined by the administrator, the Probate Court, on application made by the latter, ordered the sale of the same and other •property, composing the succession of the deceased.
At that sale the plaintiff in this proceeding became the adjudicatee of the real estate in question for $4000, which was, by consent, specially deposited…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lewis v. Daily News Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. ReynoldsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2000
- Freeman & Freeman v. SeelingLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1929