Case Name: In the Matter of the Minors M. M., William P., and Courtland Smith-John W. Smith, Tutor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1870-04
Citations: 22 La. Ann. 253
Docket Number: No. 2719
Parties: In the Matter of the Minors M. M., William P., and Courtland Smith—John W. Smith, Tutor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 253–256

Head Matter:
No. 2719.
In the Matter of the Minors M. M., William P., and Courtland Smith—John W. Smith, Tutor.
The omission to name a creditor in tho citation cf appeal from a judgment homologaticg a tutor’s account will not vitiate the appeal.
If a judgment homologating the tutor’s account, shows an indebtedness in favor of the minors with moitgage for §11,000 00, a third party has a right to appeal therefrom, if ho has a judgmont against the tutor with m irtgage lor over Ove huudred dollars. The parish court i3 competent to grant an order o«. appeal from a judgmont homo ogating a tutor’s account, although a similiv judgment may have been tendered by the clerk of the district court, under the act cf 1855, before tho organization of the parish court. In such a case both judgments must bo embodied in the record of appeal, and the parish jrdgo is the only competent authority to grant the «. rdcr.
An acknowledgment by the husband in the form of a receipt, that he received from the wife tho amount of paraphernal funds therein expressed, is conclusive between tbo husband and wife or their heirs, and is prima facie proof as to al other parties. Such evidence will autnorize a judgment in favor of the heirs in a suit against their iather m his capacity of tutor.
The mortgage of the minor on the property of his tutor to secure the faithful administration oí his estate, and to cover the indebtedness contracted by the tutor to the minor on account of the community and separate property of the minor, which he has acquired by purchase, attaches from and after the date of the .ippointment and qualification of the tutor.
A third party in an opposition to tho homologation of a tutor’s account can not be heard to contest the validity of an adjudication which occurred prior to the existence of his debt.
A tutor owes five per cent, per annum on the funds from the date of receipt, and when the accounts are liquidated, livo x^er cent, on tho aggregate amount from tho day ihc. accounts are closed*
If the tutor charge himself with the revenues cf the minor, he is entitled to credit for the expenses of the minor to the extent of the revenues.
A third party, a mortgage creditor, can only have the judgment of the court below corrected on appeal, in so far as it appears upon the face of the record to grant a mortgage prejudicial to his mortgage, ifo amendment or change of the judgment can be made between appellees.
from tho Parish Court of West Feliciana. 'Riley, Parish Judge.
Oollins <& Realce, for appellees. Winter & Butter, for appellants.

Opinion:
Howell, J.
A motion is made to dismiss this appeal on the following grounds:
First — All parties interested in maintaining the judgment appealed from have not been legally cited; service on a curator ad hoe was unauthorized.
Tlie appeal is taken by W. S. Peterkin, a third person, from a judgment homologating the tutor's account. One item of said account is for 11 expense of children seventeen years, at $50, $2550." Nothing-shows to whom said expenses were paid, and a curator ad hoc was appointed to represent parties as unknown. Every one whose name appears in the account is cited, including the tutor and undertutor. The omission to name a creditor in the above item can not destroy the right to appeal; but the account and record justify the inference that the item is an allowance to the natural tutor, and the appointment of a curator ad hoc may be viewed as made in abundance of caution.
Second — There is no evidence in the record or before this court showing the interest of Peterkin to be over five hundred dollars, hence the court is without jurisdiction.
The judgment appealed from allows the minors over $11,000, with mortgage. Peterkin files with his petition for appeal, a judgment for over $6000, with mortgage, against the father, who is tutor, and alleges that he is aggrieved by the judgment in favor of the minors against the said tutor. There is certainly an appealable interest shown here sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court.
Third — The parish judge was without authority to grant an appeal from a judgment of homologation, rendered by the clerk of the district court under the act of 1855.
Judgment of homologation was first rendered by the clerk of the district court, and after the record was transferred to the parish court, another judgment, upon the same demand by the same parties, was granted. It was thus made necessary by the appellees, doubtless, or a part of them, for the appellant to bring up both judgments, if there was a necessity for the two below, and we are at a loss to know by what judge or court the appeal could be granted,-if not by the court having jurisdiction of the cause and record.
The motion is therefore overruled.