Case ID: rob_9/html/0113-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Morpiiy, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Silas Lillard, Under-Tutor, v. Elizabeth Kemp, Natural Tutrix of her minor children.
    An action for the removal of a tutor or tutrix, cannot be prosecuted, eVen by the under-tutor, without authority from the Probate, Judge. Per Curiam: The under-tutor, like any other person, must communicate to the Judge of Probates the fact which may render it necessary to remove the tutor, and the judge is to determine whether there be sufficient ground to commence an action. C. P., 10X5, 1016.
    Appeal from the Court of Probates of Concordia, M‘Whorter, J.
    
      Frost, for the appellant.
    Anterior to the promulgation of the Code of Practice, an under-tutor might institute an action for the removal of a tutorv without authority from the probate judge. The Code of Practice has not taken away this power, but only authorised the judge to compel the under-tutor to bring suit. Code of Practice, art. 1016.
    
      Stockton, on the same side.
    Article 301 of the Civil Code makes it “ the duty of the under-tutor to act for the minor, whenever the interest of the minor is in opposition to the interest of the tutor.” It would be hard to make the under-tutor responsible for the non-performance of his duty, when he could act only at the will of another.
    
      Shaw, curator ad Hoc, for the defendant.
    No action can be commenced without the' sanction of the probate judge. • Code of Practice, arts. 1015, 1016. The object of the law is to protect the tutor from vexatious and useless suits.
   Morpiiy, J.

The petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing a suit he had brought for the removal of the defendant from the tutorship of her minor children, on the ground that she has shown neglect and incapacity in her administration, and that she has left the state with her said minors. The exception taken below and sustained, is, that the plaintiff is without authority to institute this suit, unless authorised or directed by the probate judge to prosecute it. We think that the inferior court did not err.. The Code of Practice makes it the duty of every person to acquaint the judge of probates with the fact rendering it proper to remove a tutor. It further provides that the judge, when made acquainted with such fact, if he thinks there is probable cause for removal, shall direct the under-tutor to prosecute his removal, &c. Articles 1015,1016. Prom these provisions of law, we understand, that the under-tutor, like any other person, must communicate to the probate judge the fact which may render it necessary to remove the tutor; that the judge is to determine whether there is sufficient ground to commence any action against the tutor; but that no one, not even the under-tutor, is authorised to prosecute it, without being directed to do so by the Court of Probates. This requirement of the law was probably intended to protect the tutor from inconsiderate and harassing suits on the part of the under-tutor, and to save the estate of the minor from the costs of such suits. 10 La. 82. 12 La. 577. 13. La 67.

Judgment affirmed.