Case Name: Succession of W. H. Gayle. Opposition of G. King and others to final account of Administratrix
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1875-07
Citations: 27 La. 547
Docket Number: No. 567
Parties: Succession of W. H. Gayle. Opposition of G. King and others to final account of Administratrix.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 547–555

Head Matter:
No. 567.
Succession of W. H. Gayle. Opposition of G. King and others to final account of Administratrix.
The motion to dismiss the appeal because there is no day fixed for the return of the appeal, can not prevail. The appeal is made “ returnable to the Supreme Court of the State oí Louisiana at its next term, commencing in the city of Monroe on the first Monday oí July, 1875.” This was fixing the day with sufficient certainty.
After a wife has obtained a separation of property from hor husband, and has executed it, and has assumed the administration of her estate, it would be a fraud upon the public to permit her to acquire a legal mortgage upon the property of the husband, acquired v him subsequent to the iudsment of senaration. bv allowing bim to manage her rwcvn.' by him subsequent to the judgment of separation, by allowing him to manage her prop-1 erfcy and spend her money. He must be presumed to have acted as her agent, and as i such he owes her an account of his administration, but his acta create no mortgage on^ his estate.
Mrs. Gayle, tbe administratrix, having occupied a house which was the separate property of her husband, and which belonged to bis succession, must be charged with the rent as any third person would be.1
Neither by separate or combined action can the administratrix and attorney of the succession impose an onerous charge upon an estate by the employment of counsel, when the estate is already provided with a competent legal adviser. If the administratrix chooses to employ additional counsel, sbe must pay him out of her own funds.
In matters of opposition to succession accounts all the parties are plaintiffs and defendants, and each opponent must mate out his case by proper and sufficient proof.
The reinscriptiou of a mortgage after the peremption, subsequent to the death of the mortgager, does not affect the property of the succession with a mortgage.
The opposition to the failure of the administratrix to the account for amount oí notes given for the purchase of property sold on the Stevens plantation, must be maintained. The proposition that the balance due Mrs. Stevens for rent exceeds the amount of these notes, is inadmissible. The notes were given for property belonging to the succession. It was the duty of the administratrix to collect them, and to place the proceeds on her account, leaviug it to the partios in interest to claim their right of preference over tbe proceeds.
APPEAL (rom the Parish Court, parish of Ouachita. Balter, J.
Cobb (& G-uriby, John Bay, for administratrix and appellee. B. W. & B. Richardson, Morrison & Fcvrmer, Robert J. Oalchoell, for opponents and appellants.

Opinion:
Morgan, J.
Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on several grounds:
First — Because there is no day fixed for the return day of the appeal. .The-appeal is made "returnable to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana at its next term, commencing in the city of Monroe on the first Monday of July, 1875." Monroe is the place where, by law, the case under consideration is returnable, and tbe first Monday in July is the day upon which appeals returnable there are to be filed. When, therefore, the parish judge ordered the appeal to be returned here on the first Monday of July, 1875, he with sufficient certainty fixed the day upon which it was to be returned, and he fixed it properly.
Second — The evidence missing, if it be missing, would not affect tbe decision.