Case Name: Succession of Henry J. Forstall
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1880-01
Citations: 32 La. Ann. 97
Docket Number: No. 7129
Parties: Succession of Henry J. Forstall.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 97–101

Head Matter:
No. 7129.
Succession of Henry J. Forstall.
An appeal will lie from a judgment liomologating tlie proceedings of a family meeting recommending a compromise relating to tlie interests of a minor.
In reviewing a judgment of a lo-wer court this Court 'will consider no record’, document, or act, "which was not in evidence before that court "when its judgment was rendered.
This Court will not inquire into the effect of a judgment as to those not parties to the proceedings leading up to the judgment.
The homologation of the proceedings of a family meeting ratifying a compromise involving the interests of a minor, will be set aside on appeal, when it appears that the lower court, at the date of the homologation, had no evidence before it going to show whether the compromise would injure or benefit the minor.
PPEAL irom the Second District Court, parish of Orleans. Tissot, J.
Henry Denis and St. Maurice Berault for executor et al., appellees.
H. Howard Farrar for M. E. Forstall, appellant.
E. H. Farrar, for M. E. Forstall, appellant, contended :
That “ the testimony of witnesses in causes before the courts of probate shall be taken in writing and annexed to the record, and a list shall be made of such documents as are produced by the parties, and are not annexed to the record, that they may be read on the appeal.” This provision of law has always been held to be imperative. Polk vs. Childers, 4 An. 500; Tompkins vs. Benjamin, 16 L. 200 ; Graham vs. Graham, lb. 203; Reihl vs. Martin, 29 A. 17.
Second — That the judgment of a probate court homologating the proceedings of a family meeting recommending a compromise in which a minor’s interests are involved, with no evidence before the court showing the reasons which governed the action of the family meeting,' is not a valid judgment.
Henry Denis and St. M. Berault, for executor et al., appellees, contended :
First — That we are no parties to the probate proceedings had by the tutrix, and, therefore, that we are third persons in this case, and cannot be made appellees. Bouttó vs. Boutce, 30 An. 117; Succession of Tyson, 21 An. 117.
Second — That the probate court and family meeting can do, by ratification, that which they could do by- original act. Charpaux vs. Bel-locq, 31 An. 167.
Third — That, if the probate judge is satisfied with the advice of the family meeting, when the undertutor concurs with them, and there is no issue before the court, he may legally rest his judicial action upon that advice, without examining himself the merits of the pro posed transaction. C. C. art. 353; Code of 1808, art. 65; Lallane’s Heirs vs. Moreau, 13 La. 432.
Fourth — That, as third persons, we must be protected by the decree of the probate court, whether the same is rendered upon sufficient evidence or not, and whether it can, after the majority of the minor, be or not reversed on appeal. Lallane’s Heirs vs. Moreau, 13 La. ■432; Ehodes vs. Union Bank, 7 Eob. 63; Succession of Hickman, 13 An. 364; Graham, tutrix, vs. Hester, 15 An. 148; Groux vs. Abat, 7 La. 33; Wisdom vs. Buckner, 31 A. 58, and cases therein cited.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court on the motion to dismiss, was delivered by Manning, C. J., and on the merits by Spencer, J.
On Motion to Dismiss.
Manning, C. J.
A compromise or arrangement was made by the tutrix of the appellant of matters affecting her interest in the succession of her grandfather which was ratified by a family meeting and a judgment of homologation entered thereon. Marie Forstall, the minor, has now attained majority, and brings up these proceedings for our revision by this appeal."
The other members of the family move to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that an appeal does not lie from this judgment of homolo-gation because the minor is concluded by the deliberations of the family meeting, and the judgment ratifying them, and 2dly because these proceedings are assimilated to that of a suit wherein there was a judgment confessed.
These grounds are not tenable. It may be, that upon a judicial examination of these proceedings, it will be found that the appellant is concluded, but she certainly has the right to have that judicial examination made, and she cannot be turned out of court upon a mere motion to dismiss. In a former case it was said by this court, " The power of the District Court to order a family meeting and to approve a transaction or compromise relating to the interests of minors, recommended by such meeting, may well be inquired into when the whole case is .before the court." Freret vs. Marigny, 8 La. 503.
In a case involving the same principle, reported in the Journal du Talais for 1858, p. 178, the court say, " attendu que le jugement qui statue sur une demande en homologation d'une transaction dans laquelle un mineur est interressó est un veritable jugement, statuant quelquefois sur des intéréts d'une grande importance;, qu'il est impossible de n'ad-mettre en ce cas qu'un seul degró de juridiction, et de decider qu'il ne peut pas étre attaqué par la voie de l'appel par la partie qui n'a pas la droit de prendre celle de l'opposition; attendu que les conclusions prises par le tuteur en premiere instance ne peuvent l'empécher d'appeler d'un jugement qui nuit aux intéréts clu mineur, attendu que la demande en homologation de la transaction devait étre portée devant le tribunal de premiere instance, aux termes de l'art. 467 O. N., quoiqu'elle portát sur une instance pendante devant la cour; que les intéréts du mineur ne peuvent pas en souffrir puis qu'il a toujours le droit d'attaquer par la voie de l'appel un jugement d'homologation nuisant aux intéréts du mineur," etc., and then the proceedings of the family meeting are examined and the judgment of homologation reversed.
We know of no precedent for the dismissal of an appeal such as this upon grounds similar to those urged here.
The motion to dismiss is denied.