Legal Opinion
Sibley v. Pierson
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Decided November 2, 1909No. 17,130Published
Appeal from Eleventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Natchitoches; Samuel J. Henry, Judge. Action by S. IT. Sibley and others against Miss Florence Pierson and others.
1Opinion
On Rehearing.
MONROE, J.
3. Plaintiffs complain that the court erred in holding that the principle of collation does not apply, and their counsel argue that:
“As assignees of certain heirs, the Piersons took the place of such heirs. , They were entitled to the same rights and subject to the same obligations. Amongst those obligations was that of collating.”
“Collation” is, however, due only with respect to some gift or advantage which a forced heir has received from the parent (or ascendant) himself; the obligation of the heir, or his assignee, with respect to the property, in excess of his…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- City of New Orleans v. ShakspeareSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1887
- Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co. v. LeRosenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1899
- Widow & Heirs of King v. WartelleSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1859
- Successions of HoodSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1881
- State v. Orleans Navigation Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1822
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.