# Brown v. Furlong

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · March 12, 1928 · 166 La. 537

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3477760

## Case

- **Full name:** BROWN Et Al. v. FURLONG Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** March 12, 1928
- **Citations:** 166 La. 537; 117 So. 583; 1928 La. LEXIS 1917
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum
- **Judges:** Overton
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3477760

## Opinion text

On Application for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
1. The application of M. D. Dimitry et ,al. presents nothing new for consideration.
2. As to the application of Beatrice Foster et al., it suffices to say: (a) That Mrs. Beatrice Foster, as assignee of the rights and interest of Mrs. Saphronia Barnett Hill, is clearly entitled to receive, under her. assignment, all the net share and interest which the said Saphronia Barnett Hill would otherwise receive ' herein, without any. necessity for making further mention thereof in the judgment or amending the same to that effect, (b) That the cash and stocks now in the hands of the sheriff and clerk of court are involved in a series of complicated rules now pending before this court in the matter entitled Succession of Mrs. Florence A. Toombs, No. 28656. of our docket, which rules and the funds and stocks dependent thereon will, in due course, be disposed of by this court in such manner as to this court may seem just ¿nd proper, unless in the meanwhile the parties hereto
*547
shall agree to add said cash and stocks to the rest of the property herein to be partitioned; but there is, in the opinion of this court, no valid reason why the partition and distribution of the principal assets and effects of the Succession of Mrs. Toombs should be delayed pending technical litigation over a small fraction thereof. And (c) that it is within the province of the district judge, and not of this court, to designate the notary to complete the partition, and said district judge will doubtless designate such notary at the request of' any party in interest.
Both applications refused.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3477760. Public record. Not legal advice.