Case ID: la_17/html/0302-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Moepht, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State v. Judge of Probates for the Parish of St. Jean Baptiste.
    Until a succession, accepted with the benefit of inventory, has been administered, it is under the control and supervision, of the court of probates, and is not liable to be sold at the instance and recommendation of a family meeting in favor of the minor heirs.
    After its liquidation, should there remain any property when the debts are paid, the beneficiary heirs will be put in possession. Any sale that may be necessary must be ordered by the judge of the parish of the minors’ domicil, with advice of a family meeting held there.
    An application for a mandamus.
    This is an application for a mandamus. The tutor of the minors, Hortense and Oneida Guillemin, children of the late F. A. Guillemin, residing in the parish of St. Jean Baptiste, applied to the judge of probates for that parish, some time in February, 1841, to convoke a family meeting in behalf of said minors, in relation to a sale of certain property belonging to the sue-cession of their deceased father in the city of Mew Orleans, where his succession was opened. A family meeting was convoked accordingly and recommended the sale of the property and fixed the terms and conditions. These proceedings were homologated. The petitioner then applied to the same judge of probates to order a sale of said property, who refused.
    A rule was taken requiring the judge to show cause why a mandamus should not issue directing him to order the said sale. The judge showed for cause the reasons and grounds set forth in the opinion of this court.
    
      F. B. Conrad for the applicant,
    insisted :
    1. That the tutor of the minors was appointed and qualified by the judge of the parish of St. John the Baptist, where both tutor and minors reside.
    2. That by law the domicil of the minor is that of the tutor. La. Code, art. 48.
    3. The article 336 of the Louisiana Code requires the sale of the [501] property of minors to be authorized by the judge, Sa., and it means the judge of the parish of the minors’ domicil — him who appointed and qualified the tutor, and to whom alone the tutor is responsible. Code of Practice, arts. 944, 997; La. Code, 330.
    4. In all matters appertaining to minors the judge of the minor is the judge of the court of probates within whose jurisdiction the minor resides, and the proceedings of the court of probates of any other parish would be null and void. 2 Moreau’s Digest, 59, sect. 8; Martin’s Beports, 489 ; 12 La. Bep. 70; 14 Id. 478.
    The judge thought himself competent to give the order for the family meeting, and to cause it to be held before him, and the same law which authorized him to do the one, authorizes him to do the other.
   Moepht, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an application for a mandamus to compel the judge of the court of probates for the parish of St. John the Baptist to grant an order for the sale of property, pursuant to the deliberations of a family meeting of the minors Guillemin, held in the said parish, where the tutor of the said minors resides. In answer to the rule, the judge shows for cause why the writ should not issue:

1. That the succession of the late B. A. Guillemin, the father of the minors, was opened and is still pending and unsettled before the court of probates for the parish and city of Mew Orleans, which therefore has the exclusive right of ordering the sale of the property belonging to said succession.

2. That the tutor of these minors being at the same time the duly apappointed administrator of the succession, which could be accepted for them but with the benefit of an inventory, cannot apply for such a sale to any other judge than that of the place where said succession was opened.

3. That should the succession be insolvent, which may be the [502] case, the administrator is bound by law to call a meeting of its creditors in order to deliberate on the most advantageous manner of selling the property, and that this meeting can be ordered only by the judge who appointed the administrator.

These reasons appear to us fully satisfactory. Until a succession, accepted with the benefit of an inventory has been administered upon, and liquidated, it must of necessity remain under the control and supervision of the court of the parish in which it was opened. Article 1042 of the Louisiana Code provides that administrators shall have the same powers and are subject to the same duties and responsibilities as the curators of vacant estates. A change of domicil of the minor heirs, who have only a residuary interest in the succession, can have no effect or influence whatever in the manner of administering it. After its liquidation, should there remain any property which it should not have been necessary to sell for the payment of the debts, the beneficiary heirs will be put in possession of it. Any sale that might then become necessary, must be authorized and ordered by the judge of the parish of the minors’ domicil, with the advice arid consent of a family meeting. La. Code, 336, 346, 1042, 1044,1055, 1160; 2 Moreau’s Digest, 438, sect. 7.

Let the rule be discharged.