Case Name: James N. Platt vs. R. E. Wyche, Sheriff, et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1889-10
Citations: 41 La. Ann. 856
Docket Number: No. 253
Parties: James N. Platt vs. R. E. Wyche, Sheriff, et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 856–861

Head Matter:
No. 253.
James N. Platt vs. R. E. Wyche, Sheriff, et als.
A tutor of a minor qualified in 1877, and tiled his account in 1889, showing an indebteduoss to the minor; the account was homologated and judgment rendered thereon. Execution issued on the judgment, which was enjoined by the tutor, who claimed a homestead exemption under Act 33 of 18G5. Held that the law governing the case was the homestead law provided for in the Constitution of 387!).
APPEAL from the Second District Court, Parish of Bossier. Boone, J.
J. A. Sneider for Plaintiff and Appellee:
On Motion to Dismiss.
A surety on an injunction bond is. on the trial, a party plaintiff to the suit. O. Ik 304.
Tlie surety on an injunction bond is a necessary party to an appeal, and when tbe appeal is taken by petition lie must be oiled. Avogno vs. Jolmson, 22 Ann. 400.
Wlien the appeal is taken by petition and there is no prayer for citation on the surety on injunction bond, the fault is attributable solely to appellant. Jlov. fttat., Sec. 3G ; Gerodias vs. Handy, 31 Ann. 334.
On this Merits.
In an injunction suit there are two demands — the principal demand and the conservatory process of injunction, and the latter may he dismissed without carrying with it the former. Knox vs. Coroner et al., 13 Ann. 88.
If the injunction bond should be sufficiently identified with the petition and order of the judge in the case, an error in name of the payee will not be fatal. C. O. 1702.
An injunction bond payable to the (dork oj tlie court and his assigns, is sufficient to make th e surety thereon liable to real parties in interest. V. fe. and Texas It. It. vs. Barkesdales. 15 Ann. 465.
In an injunction suit a supplemental petition maybe allowed for the* promotion of justice. Maillot vs. Martin, 15 Ann. 40.
Injunctions will not be dissolved if there be good cause for one on the facie of the record. Ward vs. Douglass, 22 Ann. 464, Bank vs. Crooks & Maristany, 21 Ann. 324 ; Lewis & Gist vs. Daniels, sheriff, 23 Aun. 171; Dupre vs. Swafford, 25 Ann. 222; Chamhlis vs. Atchiusou, 2 Ann 491.
An injunction will not be dismissed if the record shows that plaintiff would be entitled immediately to same remedy. Lafleur vs. Monten, 8 Ann. 489; Woodward vs. Dashiel, 15 La. 181; Woolfork vs. Woolfork. 22 Ann. 207; Chamhlis vs. Atchinson, 2 Ann. 493; Exnecios vs. Weiss, 3 hT. S. 610.
Additional security may be permitted to be given in an injunction suit. Woolfork vs. Woolforlc. 22 Ann. 207.
The legal obligation of a tutor is evinced by his bond as such.
Rights to homestead or exemptions existing prior to Constitution of 1879 are not impaired, repealed or affected by any provision of tliat instrument. Const., Art. 220; Gilmer vs. O'hieal, 32 Ann. 982: Pool vs. Cook et als., 34 Ann. 332; Thomas vs. Guilbeau, 35 Ann. 929; Gamier vs. ¡Sheriff otal., 39 Ann. 886.
The exception as to fiduciaries is not numbered among those in Act 33 of 1865, extra session.
If tlie right asserted be legal and the sole defect in the injunction bond is manifestly an oversight or mistake, there can be no malice or want of probable cause in obtaining the writ, and defendant’s claim for damages will be rejected. Slaughterhouse Co. vs. Howell, 37 Ann. 284; Maroott vs. Messick; Maunmg’s U. C., 88-42; Carroll vs. Reidheimer, 35 Ann. 375: Davis vs. Millaudon, 14 Ann. 809; Eorbes vs. Geddes, 6 Ann. 402; Moraucy vs. Clarke et al.. 6 Aim. 178.
Plaintiff in a suit enjoining the sale of his homestead may recover such damages as ho has suffered. White vs. Givens, 29 Ann. 571.
J. A. Lowry, John K. Phipps and John Young for Defendant and Appellant:
3.The law regards the interest of minors with parental solicitude; and its provisions for their protection will he strictly enforced. Bernard vs. Yigneaud, 1 iST. S. 62; 31 Aim. 31, Succession of Elliott.
2. A party cannot make his own turpitude the basis of a claim in a court of justice. ‘‘A# turpi cama, non oritur actio ”
A party should not be hoard with favor in any court of justice, who invokes the aid of the law to relieve himself from the consequences of his voluntary and criminal violation of its provisions. 2 Hen., 1007 A., 1ST. 1.
3. Homestead exemption laws being in derogation of com.non right must be strictly construed and the party asserting a homestead must bring himself clearly within the purview of the law granting it. Tilton vs. Yigers. 33 Ann. 240 ; 28 Ann. 067; 21 Aim. 680 ; Gallager vs. Payne, 34 Ann. 1057; Bossier vs. Sheriff, 37 Ann. 203 ; Kerr vs. Sheriff et al., 38 Ann. 713.
4. A dative tutor, charged l>y order of the court with the administration of the minor’s property, is to all intents and purposes, the agent of his ward, and as such is governed by the laws which regulate the relation of agent and principal. Story on Agency, Section 3, and also Sections 9 and 10, Wharton's Commentaries on Agency, Section 10.
5. The relation of principal and agent does not create the relation of creditor and debtor. So long as the agency continues, the property or funds in the hands of the agent belongs to the principal, the agent being a mere trustee. 10 R. 401; 6 Ann. 40.
6. The relation of a tutor to libs minor is one of confidence and trust, and lilco all other agentcíes is fiduciary in its nature. And the fiduciary character is the legitimate and necessary result of the relation of principal and agent existing between the minor and tulor, and can derive its origin and existence from no other source.
I. The debt on which the execution, enjoined, issued, did not accrue until October 31, 1888, after the account of J. N. Platt, tutor to Mary R. Platt, had been filed and the amount still in the hands of her tutor had been fixed, by tbo judgment homologating the account, and plaintiff’s refusal or neglect to deliver over to his ward the funds in his hands belonging to her.” 37 Ann. 410; 6 Ann. 40; 10 R., 481.
8. The homestead exemption provided in the Constitution of 1879, Articles 219 and 220, docs not apply to a judgment rendered against a party for money misappropriated by an agent, Bridwell vs. Iiolliday, 37 Aim. 410.
9. Jib homestead exemptions for a debt accruing since the promulgation of Act No. 14 of 3880, entitled an Act to carry into effect Articles 219 and 220 of the Constitution of 1879, can ho maintained, unless the homestead claim relied on has been previously set apart and registered in conformity to the provisions of Act 14 of 3880. Kinder vs. Sheriff et al., 38 Ann. 713.
10. A party entitled to a homestead exeniption, under the homestead exemption legislation of 1865, who voluntarily accepts an appointment from judicial authority and for the faithful discharge of which he executes a judicial bond in compliance with law, and to which the law, as he well knows, attaches a legal mortgage on all libs immovable property as a securi ty against any future and contingent liability which may result from a misappropriation of effects committed to bis care, thereby voluntarily waives and renounces hi? homestead exemption as to any amount which a final settlement shows are still in his hands and which he refuses to deliver over.
II. A party who abuses the equitable remedy by injunction to arrest the execution of a monied judgment should be mulcted in damages. Lambeth vs. .Stuart, 38 Ann. 693 ; C. L\ 304; Bridwell vs. Iíalliday, 37 Ann. 410.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
McEnery, J.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the sureties on the injunction bond have not been made parties to the appeal.
The case was taken up, evidenced, adduced and arguments made.
The sureties were properly'before the court.
The following agreement was entered into by counsel, as appears by the minutes of the court:
"Judgment to be rendered in Chambers by consent and appealed therefrom, as in open court-"
In pursuance of this agreement defendants applied for and obtained an order of appeal. On the order thus granted the following acknowledgment and waiver of citation of appeal was made: " Service of citation in above acknowledged and all copies waived " — and signed by the attorney for plaintiff and appellees.
The formal agreement entered upon' the minutes of the court and the legal waiver of citation by the attorney for plaintiff rendered the, service of citation upon the sureties unnecessary.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is, therefore, overruled.