Case Name: In re TUTORSHIP OF RATCLIFFE MINORS. Opposition of INTERSTATE TRUST & BANKING CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1916-01-24
Citations: 139 La. 996
Docket Number: No. 21264
Parties: In re TUTORSHIP OF RATCLIFFE MINORS. Opposition of INTERSTATE TRUST & BANKING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 996–1006

Head Matter:
(72 South. 713)
No. 21264.
In re TUTORSHIP OF RATCLIFFE MINORS. Opposition of INTERSTATE TRUST & BANKING CO.
(Jan. 24, 1916.
On the Merits, March 20, 1916. On Application for Rehearing, Oct. 16, 1916.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Guardian and Ward <&wkey;151 — Tutorship —Compensation op Tutor — “Revenue.”
The term “revenue,” as used in article 349 of the Civil Code, allowing a tutor a commission of 10 per cent, on the annual revenue of the property committed to his charge, means the income produced without impairment of the capital.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Guardian and Ward, Cent. Dig. § 501; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>151.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Revenue.]
2. Guardian and Ward <&wkey;-151 — Tutorship —Compensation op Tutor — Commissions.
The tutor is not allowed to treat as revenue, and charge a commission on, the dividends paid from profits that were earned before the minor inherited the stock.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Guardian and Ward, Cent. Dig. § 501; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>151.]
Appeal from Eleventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Natchitoches; W. T. Cunningham, Judge.
In the matter of the tutorship of the minors of George M. Rateliffe. Opposition to the final account of the Interstate Trust & Banking Company. From the judgment, the accountant appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Thomas E. Furlow, of New Orleans, for appellant. Robert H. Marr, of New Orleans, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
SOMMERVILLE, J.
The motion is on the ground that the transcript is defective, in that certain portions of the pleadings and evidence which are necessary to a proper trial of the case on appeal are missing. Since the motion was filed the appellant has, under the law, filed a supplemental transcript, which appears to contain the missing documents.
The motion is denied.