Case Name: Bernard Klotz vs. Charles Macready and Nicholas Burke, Executors
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-05
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 596
Docket Number: No. 8661
Parties: Bernard Klotz vs. Charles Macready and Nicholas Burke, Executors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 596–601

Head Matter:
No. 8661.
Bernard Klotz vs. Charles Macready and Nicholas Burke, Executors.
Grammatical or clerical errors do not vitiate proceeding», if there be'no ambiguity or'uncertainty.
It is not needful that interlocutory judgments be signed by the Judge,,and they may be appealed from wlien they may cause irreparable injury.
It is in time if the blank of the appeal bond where the amount is to be inserted is filled before the return day and before the appeal is brought up.
The petition of appeal recited the name of the suit and the judgment rendered in it, from which the appeal was taken, and the citation was addressed to the appellee without adding the title “liquidator,” which had been conferred on him by the judgment, held, the citation was sufficient.
Articles 1138 etseq. of the Civil Code, entitling the survivor of .a commercial' partnership to be appointed liquidator of the partnership by the court where the succession is opened, do not apply to testamentary successions.
Where the executors of the last will of the deceased oppose such appointment on just and reasonable grounds, the court is not justified in making tbe appointment.
In no caso has the surviving partner a right to such appointment where, by tbe partnership contract, it is provided that such survivor shall have a certain terra to wind up tbe business, and it is shown that during that time, though in possession of all the assets of the partnership, with full powers of administration, he has taken no step towards a liquidation of the concern.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for tbe Parish of Orleans. Tissot, J.
A. J. Murphy and W. S. Benedict for Plaintiff and Appellee :
2. The surviving partner is entitled to the appointment of liquidator of tbe affairs of the late partnership, unless he is shown to be incompetent or dishonest. Story on Partnership, See. 344.
2. It is the duty of a liquidator or administrator to dispose, at the earliest practicable moment, of such portion» of the property committed to his charge a» may be perishable or expensive to keep. C. C. 2162, 1163.
3. When a settlement and liquidation of the affairs of the partnership, and the respective rights of the partners cannot he arrived at, except by a sale of the property of the partnership, it is proper that the court, at tbe instance of the liquidator, should direct a sale of such property. 3 K. 48 •, 6 Ah. 484.
T. Gilmore & Sons and J. Ad. Hosier for Defendants and Appellants:
1. Where the articles of partnership specify a time for the “winding up” of the business after the death of a partner, the liquidation should be completed within that time.
2. Where the surviving partner has done nothing towards the liquidation within the time allowed by tho articles for tbe “ winding up,”1 and has rendered no account to the representatives of the deceased, he should not be heard to urge his claim to the liquidation.
Z. Where hi» administration show» that the debts of the partnership have increased within the time allowed for the “ winding up,” and that the surviving partner has drawn from the funds of the partnership in cash more than his interest in the partnership, his claim to be liquidator should be rejected.
* 4. There is no right of survivorship other than as established by Articles 1138-9 of the Civil Code for vacant succession». Where the heir» are present, and capable of accepting, the surviving partner is not entitled to the exclusive liquidation. C. C. 1143; McKeown vs. McGuire, 15 An. 637.
5. The surviving partner who continues the business with the partnership property stands in the relation of trustee to the heirs of the deceased, and must account for the profits made in the new business. Kent Marg. 64; Parsons on Part. 443; Story on Part. §§ 329, 341, 343, 3441 Brown vs. Detastet, Jacob’s Bug. Ch. B. 284; Ogden vs, Astor, 4 Sandf. 311.
6. Where the surviving partner has been appointed liquidator, he is bound to dispose of the partnership property for the common benefit ‘•‘in the ordinary course of trade,’’and cannot sell it at public auction without notice to the representatives of the deceased. C. C. 1138.
7. The real estate belongs to the partners, not as partnership property, but pro indiviso. C. C. Art. 2880, § 4; Hennen's Digest, p. 1089, Bo. 3.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Manning, J.
There are four grounds of the motion to dismiss:
J. ' That in the petition of appeal complaint is made of three judgments rendered in the case, while the prayer is for an appeal from u said judgment," -without specifying which one of the three is meant.
The appellants did not specify which one was meant, because they meant all. The petition of appeal really sets out in substance the three judgments in detail, and their several dates are given. The omission of the letter s is clerical, or at most a grammatical error. Mala grammatlca non vitiat chariam is a very useful maxim.
2. That one of these judgments, appointing the plaintiff liquidator, was not signed by the Judge.
The suit is for the settlement of a partnership. The order appointing Klotz liquidator is interlocutory. That is the first of the three judgments complained of. The other two were rendered afterwards in the course of the proceedings. That judgment evidently was not tiie final one, and did not require the Judge's signature. Code Prac. Art. 566.
3. That the blank in the appeal bond for its amount was not filled when it was filed, nor until after it had been copied in the transcript.
Tiie bond was annexed to the petition for appeal, ready for the blank to be filled when the Judge should fix the sum. It was filled before the return day, in the presence of the clerk, and with the assent of the surety. It appears in the transcript complete. The blank w'as filled in time. Had it not been filled until after the appeal was lodged here, it might have been too late. Percy vs. Millaudon, 6 La. 586.
4. That the order of sale (one of the judgments appealed from) was made at the instance of Klotz as liquidator, and be lias not been made a party to the appeal in that capacity.
Klotz was cited to answer the petition of appeal, and that petition recited that the defendants were aggrieved by the three judgments rendered in the suit, giving the name and number of it, and particularizing the judgments, The petition and the citation were served together. Tt is impossible to be in doubt as to what he was to answer. His suit is in his individual capacity. The judgment that makes him liquidator is one of those contested.
The motion is refused.