Fontenot v. Fontenot

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Fontenot v. Fontenot

4 La. Ann. 488

DecidedSeptember 15, 1849

StatusPublished

This text of 4 La. Ann. 488 (Fontenot v. Fontenot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fontenot v. Fontenot, 4 La. Ann. 488 (La. 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

The of court was pronounced by

Rost, J,

The plaintiff sues the legal representatives of his tutor, for a sum of money, which, he alleges, the latter had made himself liable to pay. The defence is a plea of prescription, under article 356 of the Code. That plea was ■sustained in the court below, and the plaintiff appealed.

It appears, that Don Diego Lafleur, the ancestor of the defendant, was appointed tutor of the plaintiff, in place of Clemence Richard, the natural tutrix, who lost the tutorship, by contracting a second marriage, without having been ■authorized to retain it. Clemence Richard and her husband had acknowledged in writing, that they had received $1,494, inherited by the minor from his father.

After the appointment of Lafleur, Clemence Richard transferred to him, a claim against Jean Marie DebaillO'n, for $1,386 27, hearing ten per cent interest, which Lafleur bound himself to apply, when collected, to’ the payment, so far as the sum would go, of the sum due by her as tutrix. Lafleur obtained a judgment upon this claim; but, before it was satisfied, Debaillon died insolvent ; and there is no proof that any portion of it has been paid. It is not pretended thafthe balance due by Cltrhence Richard has ever been paid to Lafleur. We cannot distinguish this case from that of Offutt v. Collins, 11 Rob. 491. The neglect of the tutor to collect those debts of his ward, was, in the language of the law, one of the acts of the tutorship,- respecting ■yfhich he should have brought his action within four yebrs after he became of age.” The plea of prescription must prevail. Judgment affirmed:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The of court was pronounced by

Rost, J,

The plaintiff sues the legal representatives of his tutor, for a sum of money, which, he alleges, the latter had made himself liable to pay. The defence is a plea of prescription, under article 356 of the Code. That plea was ■sustained in the court below, and the plaintiff appealed.

It appears, that Don Diego Lafleur, the ancestor of the defendant, was appointed tutor of the plaintiff, in place of Clemence Richard, the natural tutrix, who lost the tutorship, by contracting a second marriage, without having been ■authorized to retain it. Clemence Richard and her husband had acknowledged in writing, that they had received $1,494, inherited by the minor from his father.

After the appointment of Lafleur, Clemence Richard transferred to him, a claim against Jean Marie DebaillO'n, for $1,386 27, hearing ten per cent interest, which Lafleur bound himself to apply, when collected, to’ the payment, so far as the sum would go, of the sum due by her as tutrix. Lafleur obtained a judgment upon this claim; but, before it was satisfied, Debaillon died insolvent ; and there is no proof that any portion of it has been paid. It is not pretended thafthe balance due by Cltrhence Richard has ever been paid to Lafleur. We cannot distinguish this case from that of Offutt v. Collins, 11 Rob. 491. The neglect of the tutor to collect those debts of his ward, was, in the language of the law, one of the acts of the tutorship,- respecting ■yfhich he should have brought his action within four yebrs after he became of age.” The plea of prescription must prevail. Judgment affirmed:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 La. Ann. 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fontenot-v-fontenot-la-1849.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack