Case Name: Diana C. Gray et al. vs. Alfred Waddell, Administrator
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1881-06
Citations: 33 La. Ann. 1021
Docket Number: No. 1011
Parties: Diana C. Gray et al. vs. Alfred Waddell, Administrator.
Judges: Mr. Justice Levy recuses himself in this case, having been of counsel.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 1021–1026

Head Matter:
No. 1011.
Diana C. Gray et al. vs. Alfred Waddell, Administrator.
.A judgment on an Opposition to the Account of an Administrator may validly decree his destitution and that he should pay a certain sum of money for which he is liable to the estate, when a direct suit was first brought by the Opponent, praying for his dismissal for mal-administration, and the direct suit and the Opposition were cumulated and tried together.
APPEAL from the Fourth District Court, parish of Winn. J. Bridger,
B. J. Bowman for Plaintiffs and Appellees:
A-n action to compel an Administrator to account and to destitute may he cumulated. 14 An. 779; 4 An. 486.
A-n Administrator must account for the inventory, 7 R. 138, a fortiori he must account for the property which he informs the Court he has sold and of whose sale he has made no account.
' There is not only no evidence in support of the charges made by the Administrator, but not even a voucher filed in support of them.
.An Administrator who fails to render an account once in twelve months shall he dismissed from office, and pay 10 per cent per annum from the date of the expiration of the twelve months. R- S. s. q. Act 1837, Ro. 102; 9 An. 376 ; 12 An. 445; 13 An. 584; a fortiori, an Administrator who fails for more than eight years to file an account, and who,' during that time, has sold the property at private sale and converted it to his own use, and fiually renders an account only at the suit of the heirs and under the imperative order of the Court, ought to he dismissed and pay 10 per cent per annum interest from twelve months after his appointment.
Jack & Buckner for Defendant and Appellant:
An Administrator can not “be destituted of his trust on an opposition to Ms Tableau, especially when his destitution is not prayed for, and when the only reasons assigned for the judgment are, that he bad not filed his account. C. P. Arts. 10J7 and 1018; 31 An. 728; 28* An. 323, G07; 29 An. 521 ; 30 An. 269.
A judgment assigning aud showing no other or better reasons than “the law and the evidence being in favor of the judgment herein rendered, it is therefore ordered and decreed, &c., does not conform with the requirements of fundamental law, and is, therefore, null, and void. 11 An. 94 ; 18 An. 260; 19 An. 525 ; 20 An. 27.
The judgment should conform with the pleadings aud the relief should not be ultra petitioner^.. 16 An. 266; 21 An. 379; 22 An. 378 ; 24 An. 349; 25 An. 281 and 28 An. 843.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
This case was submitted on briefs at the recent term of this Court at Monroe, by consent of counsel, to be decided at Opelousas.
. The facts connected with the case are briefly as follows :
John Waddell died in the parish of Winn, in the year 1863, leavmg a. widow and two minor daughters, now Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Brantley, the-plaintiffs in this case. The widow was confirmed as testamentary executrix of the deceased,'and tutrix of the minors. She died in 1869, and John E. Gray was appointed administrator of the said succession of John Waddell,, but afterwards resigned, and the defendant, Alfred Waldell, was appointed administrator of the said succession in the year 1871. He caused an inventory to be made of the property, which consisted of lands in the parishes of Winn, Grant and Natchitoches, the aggregate amounting iff value to $10,861 50. He obtained orders for sale of the property, but there-is no evidence of any returns of the sales having been filed. No account, appears to have been rendered by this administrator after his appointment, to the date of this suit against him, which was instituted in November, 1879. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs mentioned, sole-heirs of John Waddell, deceased ; and the object of it was to compel the-rendition of an account, and procure the destitution of the administrator.
The grounds upon which his destitution was claimed was the failure- and neglect of the administrator to render his accounts, and for maladministration. On the same day that the petition was filed, — the 15th November, 1879, — the defendant was ordered to render an account of' his administration.
Personal service was made on him on the 21th of same month and year.
On the 16th of February, 1880, the plaintiffs, suggesting the failure - of the defendant to render his account, in obedience to the order of the court, the.court made another order, requiring the defendant to file his. account within ten days from that date.
On the 17th of the same month, a default was taken against the defendant on the demand for his destitution.
On the 24th of same month, the administrator rendered his account,, which was opposed by the plaintiffs. This opposition seems to have been consolidated with the action to destitute, and came up for trial at-the June term, 1880, of the court, but, by agreement of counsel, was continued, and fixed for trial at the following September term. It was-tried at that term, the defendant appearing at the trial neither personally nor by counsel. From the judgment rendered against him, destituting him of the administratorship and condemning him to pay $10,307,. with interest, he, the defendant, has appealed. There- is a motion to dismiss the appeal, on several grounds, such as defect in the certificate-of the clerk, error as regards the return day in the order of appeal,, and that the transcript was filed too late, — all of which we find untenable ; and the motion is overruled'.