The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-01-25
--7-------
THE COURTS.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.

plAlntlU, ApvDiutpu as puratDf al W repre-
sent hin ii this, litigation. Judgment was
a~stas hs s Daqsa e y s a sa aa ID
sbs st2s'g9 y rssss t. ts N ssraes asas o1 been
rule on the plaintiff to shov Why she
should not, be, ordered to pay II; The sum
to be fair and due. but the plaintiff alleges rs
reason why she should not 10 condemned to pay
IT. that she docs not owe i. and that the curator
as. be ie hs @" eper oe WI, se u
his appointment May 5th. 1876, and certain lots
Of ground, with impr,a9yenents thereon and also
seiasd by tho civil sheriff Of tho parish of Or
leans, and sold to pey and satisfy the u1einept.
,, Tss % @ tss fsse " rsss eF esase IL wbs ess se ss
COURT, hsid lhat ! tearaor al hoe i intsn5sd by
and AM s. Should ,g 10 eensidered % o. principally Gene
eial IN the defendant and consequently the plain
tin n such ease is not bound 70 pqy fYr services
served that the 'obieet Of that suit on the part
Of the WIFE was to obtain the possession aud
control ~ her patnthernal estate, In which she
A rule was taken on her 10 show cause why she
should not pay the curator. al hoe $500 fof
services rendered in the spit." The Court sail !.
from the best view we have boon able to take
court erred IN allowing the. curator
q I'd s s2s ssaus s su nss q s bs a.a emss ey s was
reed IL June a. .p. 1891. In Cooley VS.. beau
vais, 9 H.. b. 3d. Buliafd. judge, declared that ~
curator I'D hos, appoihted by The court To- To- en ah
ests III such absentee, who is entitled 70 u Just
eo,"pensation for his sap,ces. to- be paid by the
absentee, whose interests he defended" There
was some Variance In the material facts of this
ease, from those IN Pontalba VS.. Pontalba. but
The court reierted 10 The lattef. and substantial
Il also referred 70 Bewet ct a vs. Wilson st al,
=. ACC and u, 10. but in Cooley vs. Beauyals.
the defendant was Condemned te pay
o'iesrne ct al il H. D. ase. Judge Marin held
That the .ufetor ~ hoe can only be allowed his
fae for defending the interest o IN absentee CON
tladietorily with him. or his representatives,
Az y . Pc Rad By a wYss p dtr's ts a
saSs Is e,pas e ebs o epais ~ TORS eas
tho duties ot nl,sentets for u substantially inda
Gates that In the opinion Of that Bench, the at
,orhg i9" b y 'ne aesn ,ns e tHeIss s s
s, iips been ei eitej 10 do that. second e"rator
would have 10 be appointed. WIG, If he were on
the appointment Of o third curator. Thus,
uptii some ono could b. found who might
Judge Eustis held that. However valuable
| the services of an attorney may have been 10 D
party In u suit IN which he rsrresented others
| having similar Interest. he cannot reeoyer 9
| lee. from q party who. has not eppioytea him
This opinion was read IN May. 1850 and Tho facts
and issues Of that case bear no resemblance to
| the question In This. Mrs. Delaobaise was n re-
sident Of the State. aud was represented In the
litigation by counsel employed by herself. MIR
| Kossus was never employed by her. but was
titlas established. TIis theory Of Tho law Is thai
s L n52eIst ns I a ss ~
| under tho appointment OF tho court, but having
rs. tho counsel Of others. in establishing hei
pay him. The court decided, otherwise
IN Mich on 81 oils. VS.. Graviet. ct ais, II AM T.
sps. decided In juno. 1866. Judge Buchanan af-
1rmed The decision IN Hosellus vs.. Delaehaise
In that ease, thu counsel claiming the fse were
not retained by tho plaintffs. aud all the parties
were within the jurisdiction of the Court. They
| The heirs Of Grayfer. Mr.. ltoseius did olaim
that no was employed hy Mrs. De,aohalse. Y
read anterior 70 the adoption q the statutes
now in operation aud under which The oufator's
isos are now liked. Advocates appointed ),
ss ''sf & .ss%sS e sSp' ts
the sum, Of ten dollars as u. foo. T.
be- taxed as costs. which, upon application and
lion h, tho services rendered" lbevsed Statutes
The decision n Field n o.. vs. New Orleans L,ene
TFsBsnsry as L was % over % u"asaseot
that 'an absentee having property in tho State
or within the jurisdiction VI the Court. liable +
Court by o curator nj hoe without attaching BIS
property" by citing the curator. II was Esnerallj
understood that tho attachment of tho pt9parti
II tho Court, but In that eass II was held thai u
was moi. aud that judgment rendered contra
dietorily with tho curator I'D hoe, Is binline ot
tho absent debtor. | rHfnt.to articles bs. q. &C
ihs aostanee SUI @ % {" ali tho tho sspress *; prosisloat
Of tho Codes On the subject Of ne apnoln,mep9 p
tho only ono which expressly stip,atss that hc
shall b On attorney. IN Cooley vs. Beauvais
pjoy ~, attorney to dsfond tho interest Of the
tbsentees. In Dupuy vs.. Hunt. q An, y. ts2. the
court held that tho ARTICLES referred 70 ,prgsnp
pose that tho absont.se has property in tho Stato
which of itself would giveeeo,irt Jurisdiction,
II the curator nd hoe. not being nm attorney. it
permitted TO employ ono IT, defend tho suit y
follows that his fee may. .bo allowed by tho cour
out Of tho prooesds Of the absentse's property
In tho case under consideration two absentses
had property within tho Jurisdiction of this
tors fea out of The proceeds of the sale, IL sim
py requiring tho absentee TO pay II. 1t Is true
ihnt. by deducting his fee from the proceeds o
Tho sale Of his property. the seizing creditor
may moi bc pnid in full. but II by no means fol
lows that for that renson he is paying tho cuta
lays REVISED Statutes. T.. 81. soc. 1879. reads rs
follows: From and after the passage Of this net
in addition to the privileges enumerated IN
privilege is hereby granted IN favor Of attorneys
ut law for tho amount of their professional foes
on NJ! iudgmen's Obtained BY them. to take rana ran,ia
~ rst privilege thera9n sss ,ss 1 r1 yo Uon
preled by tho Bupremo Court IN the succession
of r. J. Wells. "a An. y. 1G2. In that nhse tht
point WIS raised TINT tho attorneys seeking V
recover their fees for services rendered on bGtn
of the aiiooession. and tbat too unsueeossfully
enjoyed no privilege that they wore mo-
oharuontlo to the succession. inasmunh as thoiI
services did not enure To- the beneil
ri all tho parties In interest, nor to tho benefit d
tho optoient with whom most of the litigation
wns carried on. Tho Court said. all interested
II, thu ercoessons may be snid 10 bo beneilttgt
by such lognl services. iDasmuch MS there coul,
tnsia relative to debts claimed against tho sue
cession, or the rights Of the succession 70 prop
orty. Ind been obtained" The foes Of attorneys
for services Of this nature hro Of
higher dignity thhn the debts III the decensed
and thny must be paid by preferenco. Inc Co!r
cited 10 H. 440. y An. 400. and ~ An. 721 IN tn
eaaes for which foes were claimed. Messrs. Man
cd. Soo - An. J.. 23t. The same reasoning applto
to tho caso hsforo me. The services OF ~
eu rntor nd hoe were beneficial, not only ~ tht
afssntso but also tp the tutrx, in hor ropresen
, tniive enpncity. Tho law giyes him speein
priyileee for hIa professional services on tn
, ing liking his foe ag part of the costs. and nl
, though il was decided adversely 10 tho sidC b.
was ,rppointed TO defend las were the suits whie
. Mnnntng, White and Ryan dcfended). neverthe
jeas his feea are of higher dignity than tho dobt
| of the absentee IL is conceded that his service
were worth what is charged. In making W
| rule absolute fail to perceiye how i compel
the plnintifr 10 pay tho curators foo. The nbson
tss pays H. but but by doing 80 the plaintiff get
that much less for his Il. IN.
surHEME COURT DECISIONS.
Monday. January "a. 1916.
/, Present-All the Justices.
nj ~ IItatt