Case Name: Succession of BEGUÉ
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1904-02-01
Citations: 112 La. 1046
Docket Number: No. 15,087
Parties: Succession of BEGUÉ.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 1045–1049

Head Matter:
(36 South. 849.)
No. 15,087.
Succession of BEGUÉ.
(Feb. 1, 1904.)
APPEAL — REVIEW—RECORD—DATIVE TUTOR-DEATH — ACCOUNTING.
1. For the review of a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action, all the appellate court need have before it is the petition or motion excepted to as containing no cause of action, the exception, and the judgment; and the transcript need contain no more.
On Rehearing.
2. During his life the dative tutor owes such accounts as the law requires tutors to render to the court by which he has been appointed, but after his death any balance due by him to his wards becomes a debt of his succession, and must be there recovered, or, if there be a universal legatee in possession, from him; but the legatee owes no account as tutor, and his settlement of the debt due in that capacity by his testator may be made as the settlement of any other debt due to the minors may be made, i. e., with the new tutor, extrajudicially or otherwise.
3. Where the universal legatee of a deceased dative tutor, proceeding contradictorily with the incumbent of the tutorship, alleges that his testator has settled with respect to his gestión with his immediate successor, and prays the cancellation of the mortgage recorded in favor of the minor, a cause of action is disclosed, and, if his allegations be sustained by proof, he is entitled to judgment. The account between a former tutor, or his succession, and the new tutor, is not to be held open until the minor, perhaps of tender years, arrives at the age of majority.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Walter Byers Sommer ville, Judge.
In the matter of the succession of Annie A. Begué. Rule on the register of mortgages and the tutor of the minors Begué, by the universal legatee of a former tutor, to show cause. From an order denying the rule, plaintiff in rule appeals.
Reversed.
(June 6, 1904.)
Lievin De Poorter and Dinkelspiel & I-Iart, for appellant. Theodore- Cotonio, for appellee.

Opinion:
PROVO STY, J.
This is a rule taken on the register of mortgages and on the present tutor of the minors BeguS, .by the universal legatee of the former tutor of the minors, now deceased, to show cause why the mortgage of the minors on the property of the deceased should not be canceled. The rule is taken by motion, as part of the proceedings in the matter of the succession of BeguS, in which proceedings the several tutors were appointed. The allegation is that the mover in rule has made with the tutor of the minors a settlement of all claims of the minors against the dead tutor, and has received from him final acquittance and discharge, with the approval of the under-tutor, and is therefore entitled to have the inscription of the minor's mortgage against the property of the dead tutor canceled. The tutor thus settled with was not the defendant in rule, present tutor of the minors, but his predecessor in the tutorship.
Defendant excepted that the motion showed no cause of action, and this exception having been sustained, the plaintiff in rule took the present appeal. The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the transcript does not contain a copy of all the proceedings had below. By this the appellee means all the proceedings in the matter of the succession of BeguS.
The sole question on this appeal is as to whether the motion showed, or not, a cause of action. For the determination of this question, the motion itself, and the exception of no cause of action, and the judgment sustaining the exception, was all that was necessary to be brought up; and this the transcript contains. We fail to see, and it is not suggested, what else would be necessary. Of course, it is worse than idle for counsel to say that for the determination of this question all the proceedings in the succession are necessary.
Motion to dismiss overruled.