Case ID: la_118/html/1075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROVOSTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(43 South. 882.)
    No. 16,384.
    Succession of BURRELL.
    (April 29, 1907.)
    Tutor — Exclusion from Tutorship.
    Article 303 of the Civil Code, excluding from the tutorship those who have failed to cause an inventory to be made within the time prescribed by law, does not apply to a case where the property of the minor consists of jewelry of small value and the person sought to be excluded did not know of its existence as belonging to the minor.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; John St. Paul, Judge.
    In the matter of the succession of Cecile Burrell, born Smith. Prom an order refusing to revoke an appointment as tutor, the undertutor appeals.
    Affirmed.
    August Arman Calongne and Arthur John Peters, for appellant. John Darling Nix and Rolla Absalom Tichenor, for appellee.
   PROVOSTY, J.

In this case, the mother and tutrix having died, the undertutor asks that a family meeting be convoked to recommend a proper person for appointment as tutor, and that the maternal grandfather of the minor be excluded from said tutorship.

All three of the grounds for exclusion from tutorship prescribed by article 303, Civ. Code, are alleged against the grandfather, viz.: (1) Conduct notoriously bad; (2) incapacity to manage his own affairs; (3) neglect to have caused an inventory to be made of the property of the minor.

The property of the minor consists of some jewelry, worth about $200, of the existence of which, as belonging to the minor, the grandfather knew nothing. It is needless to say that failure to have caused an inventory to be made under these circumstances is not good ground for exclusion. The other allegations are not proved.

Judgment affirmed.