Succession of Cassidy
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of. Orleans. Houston, J. ■1. Ho action can be brought; by’a second vendor against a vendor upon a warranty, except the intermediate vendor be a party ; this results from the general rule providing that all persons through whom relief is sought be made parties.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of. Orleans. Houston, J. ■1. Ho action can be brought; by’a second vendor against a vendor upon a warranty, except the intermediate vendor be a party ; this results from the general rule providing that all persons through whom relief is sought be made parties. See Soixas vs King, 39 Ann. ; Hyde vs. CraAdick, 10 E. 387 ■2. The second vendee has no action of warranty against the first vendor, except there be an express subrogation. Van Horght vs. Foreman, 1H. S. 352; Davison vs. Charbre’s Heirs, G H. S. 321; Smith vs. Wilson, 11 E. 522 ;…
1Opinion of the Court
*829On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
This is an appeal taken by an executor of a succession from a judgment rendered maintaining an opposition to his account.
There is a motion to dismiss the appeal—
1st. On the ground that the appellant (the executor) has no appeal-able interest;
2d. That the court has no jurisdiction ratione materia.
I
The opposition to the account is in the nature of a suit against the-succession; that is, it is a demand on the part of the opponents to compel the executor to place them on the account as creditors of the succession for a…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Thomson v. KyleSupreme Court of Florida · 1897
- Succession of RushaSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1925
- Riley v. BurroughsNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Newsom v. LangfordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Wright v. PhippsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.