Case Name: BARTON v. HICKSON
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-12-15
Citations: 134 La. 278
Docket Number: No. 19,495
Parties: BARTON v. HICKSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 134
Pages: 277–279

Head Matter:
(63 South. 902.)
No. 19,495.
BARTON v. HICKSON.
(Dec. 15, 1913.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Guardian and Ward (§ 108*) — Sales—Title of Purchaser — Minors and their Tutorship.
A sale of real estate by a tutrix of her children, though made after a family meeting was duly held and duly homologated, recommending a sale free of the legal mortgage of the children and the deposit of the price in the registry of the court until reinvested under orders of the court, passes title to the purchaser, subject to said mortgage, if he accepts title, and the tutrix cannot compel him to accept the title.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Guardian and Ward, Cent. Dig. §§ 369, 395-398; Dee. Dig. § 108.*]
Appeal from Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension; Paul Leche, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Cora M. Barton against J. J. Hickson. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Pugh & Lemann, of Donaldsonville, for appellant. B. J. Vega, of Donaldsonville, for appellee.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
Plaintiff is tutrix of her children, and brings this suit to compel defendant to accept title to a certain piece of real estate which he has agreed to buy from her. A family meeting was duly held and duly homologated, recommending that this property be sold free of the legal mortgage of the minors upon it, and that the purchase price be deposited in the registry of the court, there to remain until reinvested under the orders of the court. Defendant contends that notwithstanding said family meeting proceedings said property would pass to him, subject to said mortgage, if he accepted title. In that connection he is entirely correct. Life Association v. Hall, 33 La. Ann. 49; Lyman v. Stroudbach, 47 La. Ann. 71, 16 South. 662; Succession of Keppel, 113 La. 246, 36 South. 955; also Succession of Wegmann, 110 La. 930, 34 South. 878, and cases cited in these cases. The cases of Koehl v. Solari, 47 La. Ann. 890, 17 South. 464, Succession of Viard, 106 La. 73, 30 South. 246, Richardson v. Richardson, 52 La. Ann. 1402, 27 South. 890, and Succession of Allen, 48 La. Ann, 1240, 20 South. 683, cited by plaintiff, are not in point. The 'sales there involved were for the purpose of effecting a partition.
Judgment affirmed.