Case Name: John Sexton vs. John McMahon, Tutor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1876-11
Citations: 28 La. Ann. 898
Docket Number: No. 6067
Parties: John Sexton vs. John McMahon, Tutor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 898–900

Head Matter:
No. 6067.
John Sexton vs. John McMahon, Tutor.
Beyond her revenues, plaintiff had no right to make advances in order to educate the minor, his niece, and the tutorship is not liable on account thereof. Plaintiff, in a former suit, had judgmont for $363 30, the amount of revenues during the period he had the care and education of the child. He is not now entitled to judgment for the balance of his claim, although the court reserved his right to judicially claim it .in subseauent proceedings. The reserving of the right to claim the balance at a future time does not establish the correctness of the demand when the claim is made, nor does it authorize judgment on a claim for which the tutorship js not bound.
APPEAL from the Second District Court, parish of Orleans. Tissot, J.
Julien A. Seghers, for plaintiff and appellant.
J. J. Finney, for defendant and appellee.

Opinion:
Taliaferro, J.
The plaintiff brought suit in 1870 against the defendant as tutor of a minor child for the sum of $799 16, alleged to have been expended by him in furnishing the minor with necessary apparel, board, lodging, tuition, and school-books during the period of three years. This claim was established, and in June, 1872, the plaintiff recovered "judgment for $263 30, with legal interest from judicial demand, reserving to the plaintiff the right of claiming from the tutor the balance of his claim, say $533 86, in due course of administration of the minor's property." In February, 1875, the plaintiff filed a supplemental petition praying judgment against the tutor for the above-named balance of $533 86, 'with interest, etc.
The defendant answered denying any indebtedness to the plaintiff in his individual capacity or in his representative capacity of tutor, and, further, he alleged that plaintiff's claim had been determined and adjudicated upon by the proper court, and referred to the judgment of the nineteenth of June, 1872, above referred to. The judgment of the lower court dismissed the demand set up in plaintiff's supplemental petition, and the plaintiff appealed.
We think the judgment of the lower court correct. The plaintiff having already recovered judgment for the whole of his demand by the judgment of the nineteenth of June, 1872, had no legal right to sue again for an alleged balance due him.
Judgment affirmed.