Case Name: Succession of Mrs. S. B. Fuqua
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1875-03
Citations: 27 La. 271
Docket Number: No. 5659
Parties: Succession of Mrs. S. B. Fuqua.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 271–274

Head Matter:
No. 5659.
Succession of Mrs. S. B. Fuqua.
The motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was not executed in favor of the clerk can not prevail. The bond was executed in favor of John S. Lanier, whom the record shows to be clerk.
The peremptory exception to the jurisdiction of a special judge to issue an order granting letters of executorship mtione materice was properly overruled. Under the facts of this case the parish judge proceeded lawfully in selecting a lawyer having the proper qualifications to preside over the trial iu his place.
The instrument admitted to probate must be received as a will. It is in the olographic form, entirely written, dated, and signed by the testatrix. It is not essential that the date to an olographic will should precede the signature; it may be placed below.
There is no fidei cowmissum in the will. The testatrix does not attempt to put any property in the name of any person except her children. All she does is to direct how that property shall be administered until her children shall marry.
The intention of the testatrix expressed in her will is that her husband should have the entire control of her children,* that they should make their homes with him, and that he should control their property until they married. Her wishes could not be carried out unless he was their tutor; hence it was, in intendment of law, his appointment as tutor. That she had the right to appoint him can not be doubted..
Because a cotutor is liable to account for property belonging to minors which may have come into his hands, it does not follow that he can not be appointed their tutor by testament.
The declaration of three of the'five members of a family meeting called in the interest of the minors, that the appointed tutor is not a fit person to have charge of the minors, can not be taken into consideration. In the first place, there was nothing to authorize the family meeting, there being no vacancy in the office of tutor to be filled. In the second place, the reasons they give for their opposition are entirely outside of the law. This court can not say. in advance that the mother’s choice of the person who, in her opinion, was "best fitted to have charge, of the minors was ill-advised.
APPEAL from tlie Parish Court, parish of East Feliciana. F. F. Adams, special judge, in the place of the presiding judge, recused.
Kernan de-Lyons, for tutor and executor, appellee. Li. Li. Forman, K. A. Oross, for under tutor, appellant.

Opinion:
Morgan, J.
A motion is made to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was not executed in favor of tbe clerk. The bond was executed in favor of John S. Lanier, whom the record shows to be the clerk. This is sufficient. (See the case of Riley v. Howell, lately decided.) The motion to dismiss is overruled.