Case Name: Succession of Anna B. Nusbaum. John F. Dinkel vs. Fridolin Dinkel et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1882-05
Citations: 34 La. 900
Docket Number: No. 8574
Parties: Succession of Anna B. Nusbaum. John F. Dinkel vs. Fridolin Dinkel et al.
Judges: Levy, J., absent.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 900–906

Head Matter:
No. 8574.
Succession of Anna B. Nusbaum. John F. Dinkel vs. Fridolin Dinkel et al.
The special mortgage authorized to be given by the natural tutor in lieu of a general mortgage of the minors on all his property, must be executed by the tutor on his own-property, and cannot be given by a third person for him.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Houston, J.
Ü. 2?. Schmidt, for Plaintiffs and Appellants:
A purchaser of property from a tutor, when a certificate from the Mortgage Office is produced, showing the property to be free of incumbrance, aud when the general mortgage which existed against the tutor in favor of his wards, is shown to have been released by the substitution of a special mortgage received aud accepted upon the advice of a family meeting, and after due valuation by experts, by a couTt of competent jurisdiction, is protected by the decree accepting the special mortgage, and ordering the cancellation of the general one, and is without interest to go behind that decree and to question the sufficiency or validity of* the evidence or proceedings upon which it was based. 9 L. 196 j 14 L. 469; 15 L. 221 ; 16 L. 120; 17 L. 194; 2 An. 658.
The special mortgage which the natural tutor is authorized, by Art. 325, Rev. C C-, (embodying the provisions of the Act of 1330) to furnish as a substitute for the general one, is a conventional mortgage. 2 R. 416. Such a mortgage may be executed by a third person, on his property, to secure the rights and claims of the minors against the tutor, and the latter’s faithful administration. Rev. C. C-, Arts. 3295, 3291, 3297.
By the very terms of the mortgage, the public are infoimed that the property stands as the pledge of the minors, not merely for a particular sum, but for tlie faithful accounting by the tutor for his wards’ property, up to the moment of his final discharge. 2 R. 417.
Such a mortgage, though executed by a third person, practically secures to the minors the benefit of a legal mortgage on said property, as effectually as if it were the tutor’s. So that, while it restricts themioors’ legal mortgage to specific property, it leaves it as broad and expansive on that property, as if the same were owned by the tutor.
If the Court should hold, however, that since the abrogation of all secret or tacit mortgages by the Constitution of 1868, and the laws enacted in confoimity therewith and maintained by the Constitution of 1879, legal mortgages, whether general or special, can only exist, as regards persons other than the mortgagor or mortgagee, to the extent of the amount specified in the mortgage as recorded, Rev. C. 0., Arts. 3345, 3351; such ruling would evidently iu no way militate against the validity of a special mortgage executed by a third person on his property for the tutor’s obligations.
Braughn, Bucle & Dmlcélspiel, W. 0. Bart, for Defendant and Appellee:
1. The letter of the law is not to be disregarded under pretext of following its spirit. R. C. C. Art. 13.
2. The special moitgage in favor of minors must he given by the tutor; it cannot be given by a third person for him. R. C. C. 325.
3. A purchaser at a j udicial sale has a i ight to go behind the decree, and is entitled to relief when irregularities are shown. 33 An 49; 9 An. 560.
4. A mortgage, if illegally cancelled, loses none of its validity. 33 An. 49.
5. The general mortgage of the minor cannot be removed fiom tbe tutor’s property ‘except by a special mortgage given after compliance with all legal requisites. 33 An. 49; 5 An. 497.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Fenner, J.
The question presented for our determination in this ease, is whether the legal mortgage granted by law upon all tbe immovables of a natural tutor in favor of tbe minors, can be released by a special mortgage executed, not by the tutor upon his own property, but by a third person at the request of the tutor, upon property belonging to snob third person. The question is not whether it would not have been a wise and proper provision of law to allow the release' of the general mortgage upon the giving of such a special mortgage by a third person, but whether the law has actually made such provision. Under the original Code of 1825, no mode was provided by which the natural tutor could relieve his entire immovable estate from the legal mortgage resting thereon, for the security of the minors' rights, and substitute therefor a special mortgage.
By an act passed in 1830, the Legislature made a special provision on this subject, modifying the prior general law to the exact extent specified therein, and to that extent only. That provision is now embodied in Article 325 of our existing Code, and is in the following words :
" The surviving father or mother who becomes the natural tutor of his or her minor children, may give a special mortgage on immovable property, for the security of the rights, etc. From and after the execution of the special mortgage hy the matured tutor as aforesaid, all the remaining property of the father or mother acquired or to be acquired, shall bo completely discharged from the legal mortgage arising from the tutorship."
We can perceive no ambiguity in this language. Its import is perspicuous and unmistakable. It provides for the execution of a special mortgage hy the tutor, on immovables neeessarify belonging to him, because a man cannot specially mortgage property not belonging to himself. But the law does not leave this matter to inference, however inevitable; because it expressly declares that after the execution of the special mortgage, " the remaining property of the father or mother shall be completely discharged, etc." If we should hold that the minor's general mortgage could be released by a special mortgage, other than one executed by the tutor upon property belonging to him, we should not be interpreting law, but making law, and however wise and proper such a law would be, we have no power to legislate.
In the present case, the objection to the sufficiency and legality of the cancellation of the minors' general mortgage on the property sold, is urged by the purchaser at a judicial sale, as a reason for declining the title offered; and'it is contended, that inasmuch as the court had accepted the special mortgage referred to and had ordered the cancellation of the minors' general mortgage, the purchaser was protected by the order and had no right to question its validity. This contention is fully disposed of by the following decisions: Succession of Gassen vs. Palfrey, 9 An. 560; Life Association vs. Hall, 33 An. 56.
• The arguments ah mconvenienM, basedupon our decision in the case last quoted, would exercise whatever influence they might be entitled to as an inducement to us to modify that decision; but certainly could not, under any circumstances, justify us in adding to our Code a provision not placed there by the legislative will.
Judgment affirmed at appellants' cost.
Levy, J., absent.
The Chief Justice dissents.