Bryan v. Atchison
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the District Court of Carroll, Mayo, J. The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court, infra. The warrantor sets up title by a forced alienation from Neibert’s estate to Wilkins, made April 8th, 1842, resulting from a judgment of the Court of Probates, and sale in pursuance thereof.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of Carroll, Mayo, J. The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court, infra. The warrantor sets up title by a forced alienation from Neibert’s estate to Wilkins, made April 8th, 1842, resulting from a judgment of the Court of Probates, and sale in pursuance thereof. This title, and the judgment or decree upon which it is founded, are opposed by us as absolutely null and void. 1st. Because the decree of sale was ex parte, and without notice to any one as representing the succession, and was not a judgment. 1 Mart. N. S. 9. 5 lb. 446. 19 La. 354. 14…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Rost, I.
James Campbell Wilkins and Joseph Neibert, were joint owners of a plantation and slaves, and Wilkins was a creditor of the partnership for a large sum. Niebert died, leaving a wife and three minor children. Sarah Bryan, the widow, was confirmed as natural tutrix, and an under-tutor was appointed. A family meeting, convened to deliberate on the interests of the minors, was of opinion that it was materially for their interest and advantage, that the succession of then- father should be accepted in their behalf, under the benefit of an…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Succession of KeppelSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1904
- Deshotels v. LafleurSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1914
- Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. WrightU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 1904
- Succession of ComeauSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1925
- Succession of BrierreSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.