Case Name: PATOUILLET vs. PATOUILLET
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1831-03
Citations: 2 La. 270
Docket Number: 
Parties: PATOUILLET vs. PATOUILLET.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
PATOUILLET vs. PATOUILLET.
ATPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PROBATES FOR THE PARISH AND CITY OF NEW-ORLEANS.
On the division of a parish the former Court of Probates retains its jurisdiction of successions theretofore opened.
This suit was brought by the son, to recover from his mother and natural tutrix, the share accruing to him from the succession of his father, which was opened in the parish of Orleans.
Eastern District,
March 1831.
On the division of a parish the former court of probates retains its jurisdiction of successions thereto opened.
The defendant excepted to the jurisdiction of the. court, on the ground that she was a resident of the parish of Jefferson. The court overruled the exception. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
Preston, for appellant. Rouseau, for appellee.

Opinion:
Mathews, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case the plaintiff claims from his mother, the portion of his father's estate which fell to his share, and was administered by her, as his tutrix by nature, and he obtained judgment in the court below, from which she appealed.
An objection was made to the jurisdiction of the Probate Court of the parish and city of New-Orleans, on account of an alleged division of the parish, which placed the defendant in the parish of Jefferson. It does not appear that on the division, any requisition was made by law, for the removal of records to the new parish. The court in which this suit was commenced, is that in which the succession of the plaintiff's father was opened. Under all the circumstances of the case, we are `of opinion that the judge a quo, was right in retaining jurisdiction.
The defence set up on the merits of the cause, is expenditures incurred by the tutrix, beyond the revenue of the minor. The evidence does not establish the facts of this de-fence.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that ,the judgment of the Court of Probates be affirmed with costs.