Case Name: Succession of Eugénie Commagère
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1886-11
Citations: 38 La. Ann. 830
Docket Number: No. 9532
Parties: Succession of Eugénie Commagère.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 830–836

Head Matter:
No. 9532.
Succession of Eugénie Commagère.
Where on appeal by an opponent it appears that he has not been heard at all hut was refused hearing on a stated ground, and a judgment dismissing his opposition- was entered, it is not necessary that the inventory and a mass of documents that have no relation to the issue presented by the appeal should be copied in the transcript, and a motion-to dismiss for the absence of these unnecessary and irrelevant documents will not be sustained if the pleadings, bills of exception, and other matter needful for a proper presentation of the issue to be decided, are in the transcript.
After judgment has been rendered homologating an executor’s account so far as not oppcsed, other opponents cannot come in and attack the account. The delay fixed by law must have elapsed before an homologation can be made, and they who have permitted it to pass without preferring their complaints are shut out thereafter.
But where an opposition contesting generally the whole account has been filed in time, this opponent may supplement her opposition by specifications and amplifications of the original after the homologation has been made. The judgment qualified by the words u so far as not opposed ” reserved her rights.
An opponent-heir who alleges that she signed a receipt to the executor in full settlement in error, aud that the real estate of the succession has been bought by the executor through an interposed person, and so seeks to annul the sale and bring the property back into the succession, is not required to make tender of the sum she has received before she can be heard to impugn the settlement or attack the sale.
A PPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Lazarus, J.
Jonas <& Nixon and G. Fernandez for the Executor, Appellee.
JÍ. Voorhies for Opponents and Appellants:
The spirit of our legislation is to lend every facility to examine into the conduct of administrators, and technical objections opposed to such investigation are entitled to little favor. 4 Ann. 123; 36 Ann. 416.
A judgment homologating an account so far as not opposed will not bar a supplemental opposition, specifying the items opposed, when the first opposition, previous to judgment, opposed the items generally. 26 Ann. 610; 13 Ann. 113.
A decree homologating an account so far as not opposed, without proof, is a nullity. 27 Ann. 667-
Tender, or the putting m mora, is not a prerequisite to an opposition to the final account of an administrator. The doctrine, as set forth in the Civil Code, arts. 1012 [1906] et seq., applies exclusively to commutative cod tracts.
"Where an administrator has purchased property belonging to the succession, sold on the petition of creditors, and employed the purchase price for the payment of its debts, he cannot claim previous tender of the price, but must recover rhe sum in dne comae of administration. 36 Ann. 235; 34 Aud. 1017.
Even in a commutative contract, the rescission of which would require a liquidation between the parties, tender is not a prerequisite. 15 Ann. 518. A fortiori must this be the doctrine in settlement between heirs and an executor who holds a fiduciary trust.
An opposition to a final tableau by an heir who has been cited oanuot be dismissed on a mere objection made, on the trial of the case, of want of tender, based upon a private anterior settlement, which is not before the court.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Manning, J.
The motion is based on the absence from the record of the inventory and other documents, and the failure of the appellant to have the transcript completed, and the fact that an unsigned judgment ot' May 6th, -which the mover says is the one appealed from, is not appealable.
No reference is made by page to the transcript to guide us in finding this unsigned judgment of May 6th, and we do not propose on a motion to dismiss to grope our way through the record to find it, and the more since there is a judgment of May 26th, signed and in its proper place, and that-judgment dismisses the opposition of Cheval tile appellant and continues the other opposition indefinitely.
The clerk certifies that he cannot find the inventory and other documents though diligent search has been made, but they are not needed for the purpose of this appeal. The mover seems not to apprehend the condition of the case.
No trial has been had on .the merits. The opponent was denied hearing at the outset. When she offered her first witness, the executor objected to any hearing whatever on the ground that he held the opponent's receipt for a sum paid her in settlement of the claim which she was then renewing and pressing in her opposition, and that she could not bo heard until she tendered to the executor the sum thus received. The opponent having announced that she would not tender that or any other sum, the court sustained the objection and dismissed her opposition.
The issue to be tried by this appeal is presented in an assignment of errors and bills of exception, and is whether the opponent has a right to be heard and whether a tender was necessary, not whether her claim is just and well-founded. Sor far from the transcript not having- documents enough, it has far too many. The bulk of it is not needed for the trial of the issue now presented.
• The motion is denied.