Case ID: la_7/html/0362-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bullard, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PRUDHOMME, CURATRIX vs. VIENNE’S ESTATE.
    Western Dist.
    
      October, 1834.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PROBATES FOR THE PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES.
    Where creditors agree, to allow a syndic five per cent, commission on the real amount he may have in his hands in the course of his administration, he is only intitled to a commission on the amount of moneys actually received by him, and not on the amount of notes or property which came into his hands.
    By the act of 1817, the commission of syndics cannot exceed five per cent.; and if the first syndic is allowed full commissions on the property which came into his hands, his successor, to whom it is delivered for final distribution,-would be intitled to nothing.
    The 1676th article of the La. Code, relates only to executors, and restricts their commissions to two and a half per cent, on the amount of the inventory, when they have had seizin of the whole estate.
    
      ■ The plaintiff, as curatrix of the succession of her deceased husband, claims a commission of five per cent, on the aggregate amount of certain notes, which came into his hands as syndic of the estate of Framjois Vienne, and which were delivered over to the present syndic. The amount of notes and debts due the estate of Vienne, which passed through the hands of the plaintiff’s deceased husband while acting as syndic, was eight thousand four hundred and ninety-five dollars and ninetyr-three cents, on which she claims five per cent., amounting to four hundred and twenty-four dollars and seventy-nine cents. She alleges she has demanded this sum from A. Sempeyrac, at present syndic of Vienne’s estate, who refuses to allow her claim; wherefore, she prays judgment therefor, with interest and costs.
    The syndic pleaded the general issue ; and that the plaintiff, or her husband in his life-time, while syndic, received the amount to which he was entitled.
    The evidence shows that the plaintiff’s husband was appointed syndic of Vienne’s estate by the creditors thereof, who declare “ he is entitled to receive for his services, a commission of five per cent, on the real amount he may have in his hands, in the course of his administration
    
    It is also admitted, that the account claimed, is for commissions on uncollected notes, delivered over to the syndic, the present defendant, after the death of the former syndic.
    The probate judge.was of opinion, that by the words real amount, in the procbs verbal of the deliberations of the creditors, it was evidence of their intention to allow the commission only on money actually received by the syndic, and not for the trouble of having the property sold and taking notes therefor. Judgment being for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.
    This case was submitted, after brief explanations by Mr. Barry for the plaintiff, and Gen. Thomas, for the defendant.
   Bullard, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question presented by the pleadings in this case, is whether a syndic, who administers an insolvent succession, under an agreement with the creditors, that he shall receive a commission of five per cent, on the real amount received by him, be entitled to charge that commission on notes due to the succession, not collected by him, but handed over to his successor. The expressions used by the creditors, in their deliberations, are, “ that the said syndic should be entitled to receive for his services in that capacity, a commission of five per cent., on the real amount he may have in his hands, in the course of his said administration, agreeably to law.” It is evident the creditors contemplated that the syndic should continue to administer fully on the estate, convert the proper- . ..... . ,. * , ty into money, and distribute it among the creditors. But he died before the administration was closed, and another syndic was appointed, and the notes given by purchasers at the sale of the estate, were handed over by his representatives to the v HGW syndic,

low a syndic five sfon°onthe*1Teal wlnhishS in the course of lus administralion, he is only commission" on the amount of received by him, and not on the amount of notes which came"into hishands.

^ ^ i8i/, the comScT'cannot ""exceed five per cent; and if the first syndic is aimissions ^one°the property which came into ins hands, his suerUs1’delivered for final distribution, would be entitled to no-

1676 of the La. Code relates only to executors, and to two and a half per cent, on the amount of the inventory when. they have had seizin of the whole estate,

We concur in opinion with the judge ti quo, that the creditors intended to allow the syndic a commission only on the amount of moneys actually received by him, in the course of h*s administration. The promissory notes of purchasers, do not, in our opinion, constitute a real amount in his hands. By ’ „ „„ the act of 1817, the commissions cannot exceed five per cent., and if the first syndic in this case, were to be allowed full commission on the notes in question, his successor, who is to , collect them and distribute the proceeds among the creditors, would be entitled to nothing.

The 1676th article of the Louisiana Code, on which the appellant relies, does not appear to us to support her pretensions. That article relates only to executors, and restricts their commissions to two and a half per cent., on the amount r * of the inventory, when they have had seizin of the whole CSt&tC.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the . , „ , „ „ _ , ° , „ , . , judgment of the Court ox Probates be affirmed, with costs.