The opinion
HAMLIN, Justice
(dissenting).
After a full consideration of the issues in this-case, and without any intention to reflect upon the integrity or sincerity of anyone, it is my view that there is an impasse in this case incapable of being solved unless the Gordian knot occasioned thereby is cut.
Just as the law abhors a multiplicity of suits, so does the law abhor legal bickering *784 with its resultant inconvenience, expense and delays, particularly in probate matters.
Over one hundred years ago, Charles Dickens eloquently crusaded against legal delays. Foremost among his many literary accomplishments was “Bleak House”, (1853), wherein he painted a word picture depicting the misery, unhappiness, expense and chaos resulting from protracted litigation.
William Shakespeare (1564-1616) also crusaded against the law’s delay.
I have always been of the opinion, during a general practice of twenty-nine years and ten years as a district judge, that courts should see that a succession matter is completed speedily, efficiently, and with as little expense and inconvenience as possible — all in the best interest of the creditors and all heirs of the decedent, even though some heirs may be disappointed as to how the matter should be handled. Reason dictates and justice demands that this should be so.
The people of Louisiana voted favorably for an amendment to our Constitution, effective July 1, 1960, designed to eliminate delays in Appellate Courts, and as a result thereof our judicial system is functioning smoothly and expeditiously.
Being of the view that the result reached by the' Court' óf'Appeal is correct, I respectfully dissent.