State v. Judge of the Court of Probates of New Orleans

2 Rob. 418
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided June 15, 1842·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Bullard, J.

The tutrix of Gabriel Fuselier, a minor, who resides and is domiciled in the city and parish of New Orleans, together with the under-tutor, who resides in the parish of St. Martin, unite in a petition, in which they state that the Court of Probates had ordered a family meeting to be held before a notary in this city, and that the said under-tutor had been notified to attend, but that, it being inconvenient for him to attend at so great a distance from his residence, he had petitioned the court to discharge him from his functions, and that the tutrix had united with him in a petition to that court to proceed to the appointment of another under-tutor in his place ; but that the Court of Probates for the parish of New Orleans had refused both to discharge the said under-tutor, and to appoint a successor ; and they pray for a mandamus. Whereupon a rule was taken on the judge to show cause why he should not proceed to discharge the present under-tutor, and to make a new appointment.

Bermudez, Judge of the Court of Probates of the parish of New Orleans, showed cause. The appointment of tutor and under--tutor to the minor, appertains exclusively to the Probate Judge of the parish of St. Martin, within whose jurisdiction the father was [419]*419born, lived, and died. Civ. Code, 289, 300. Code of Prac. 944, 945. If either wish to resign, the resignation must be tendered to the judge who appointed him. Civ. Code, 319. He alone can remove. Code of Prac. 1013. All causes of incapacity, exclusion, or removal of the tutor, apply to" the under-tutor. Civ. Code, 325. Every act of a tutor or under-tutor, from the time of his appointment to that of his final discharge, is exclusively under the control of the judge from whom his appointment is held. The legislation of France is substantially the same with our own, as to the domicil of the minor, and the convocation and composition of family meetings. Magnin, No. 340, says :

Suivant V article 406 (corresponding to art. 289 of the Civil Code of this State,) c’est le domicile du mineur qui regle la com-pétence du juge de -paix, ainsi le siege du conseil de famille est deplein droit chez le juge de paix du domicile de la tutelle, (the domicil of the deceased father, says art. 944 of the Code of Practice,) a moins que par le droit de son pouvoir discrétionnaire sur ce point il tí ait designé un autre local pour réunir les membres du conseil de famille. Code Nap. art. 413. Civ. Code, art. 308-

No. 74. Lorsque le tuteur legal est décédé dans un endroit éloigné de son véritable domicile, cette circonstance ne change pas le lieu de Vouverture de la tutelle, laquelle des Vinstant de son décés se trouve fixé dans celui de son domicile de droit; ainsi dans ces exemples le juge de paix du domicile des pére et mere, tuteurs de droit de leurs enfans mineurs, est seul competent pour présider le conseil de famille.

No. 78. Lorsque le conseil de famille a été présidé par le juge de paix du domicile du tuteur legal, la compétence se trouve défini-tivement fixée devant le juge de paix; ainsi le domicile du nou-veau tuteur légal, quoique fort éloigné de celui de Vouverture de la tutelle, ne change pas la compétence du juge depaix. Unefois que le conseil de famille a été présidé par un juge de paix com-pétent et légalement constitué, toutes les assemblées de famille pendant la dwrée de la minorité doivent continuer leurs délibéra-tions devant ce juge de paix. II serait contraire aux intéréts des mineurs qu’on put, selon les changemens de tuteurs. porter suc-cessivement la délibération des conseils de famille devant le juge de paix du domicile de chacun des nouveaux tuteurs, Sur ce point [420]*420la jurisprudence est uniforme. U un des considérans de la Cour de Cassation, du 23 Mai, 1819, est remarquable. II porte qu’ on ne peut induire rien de contraire a la disposition de V art. 108, [Civ. Code, 48,] suivant lequel le mineur a son domicile chez son tuteur, puisque cette disposition rü a pour objet de régler le domicile du mineur que pour la gestión du tuteur, d’ oú il suit que ce domicile cessant par la mort du tuteur, le domicile naturel du mineur re-prend toute sa force et doit regir la nomination du tuteur. Qu!enfin, si la conseil de famille devait suivre les juges de paix des divers domiciles que pourraient prendre successivement les tuteurs, il pourrait s'en suivre Vinconvénient grave de soustraire les tuteurs - a la surveillance naturelle du veritable conseil de famille, et de livrer le mineur a l'arbitraire des conseils étrangers a sa.personne et indifférens a ses intéréts; tandis que en general cet inconvenient cessepar Vattribution de toutes les nominations a un conseil de famille composé de la maniere prescrite par les articles 407 et .409, et convoqué devant le juge de paix du domicile naturel du mineur conformément a Tart. 406.

Aux considerations de cet arrét on peut ajouter, que l’ordre de . Vadministration de la tutelle exige que la minute des délibérations du conseil de famille, de tous les actes relatifs á la tutelle, soient dans le ?neme dépót, cfin de se procurer dans un instant tous les renseignemens dont on a besoin sur Vadministration des tuteurs!’’

Toullier, voL 2, No. 1114. Sirey, year 1809, 29tñ Nov. p. 63. Ib. year 1819, 23d March, p. 523. Paillet, notes on art. 407, Code Nap. Duranton, vol. 2, verbo, Conseil de Famille. Dic-“ tionnaire Général et Raisonné de Droit Civil Moderne, verbo, Conseil de Famille, p. 384, No. 4. Delvineourt, vol. 1, p, 110, No, 5. Ib. p. 116, No. 4. Nouveau Ferriére, vol. 1, p. 438, verbo, Conseil de Famille. Journal du Palais, vol. 15, 20 Avril, 1820, p. 993. Ib, vol.'22, 24 N.ovr., 1829, p. 1548. Ib. 1838, vol. 2, 17th May, 1838, p. 436. Bousquet, vol. 1, p. 6, >

Bullab.d, J. The judge shows for cause : That the appointment of the tutrix and under-tutor of the minor, Fuselier, appertains exclusively to the judge of the parish of St. Martin, within whose jurisdiction the father of the minor was born, lived, and died. That both these officers hold their appointment from that judge. That if either the tutrix or under-tutor has any excuse to [421]*421offer for her or his resignation, or against her or his appointment, it must be proposed to the judge who appointed them.

These views of our learned brother are developed much at length, and sustained by several authorities from French commentators, and to a certain extent, and within certain limitations, we are satisfied that the weight of authorities would sustain the Court of Probates, if these questions were to arise in France.

In order not to be misunderstood, we wifi premise what is the position of the parties now before us, and what is demanded; and then examine the authorities to see what course ought, in our opinion, to be adopted.

The father and mother of the minor died in the parish of St. Martin, and the grandmother became his legal tutrix. She fixed her domicil in New Orleans, which all the authorities agree became the domicil of the minor. So long as the tutrix continues to act as such, so long her domicil is that of the minor. This is too plain to requre a reference to authorities. If the tutrix were to die, the question would arise, whether the domicil of the minor would continue to be here, or whether it would revert, as it were, to the place of his father’s death. But that is not now the question.

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

State v. Judge of the Court of Probates of New Orleans, 2 Rob. 418 (La. 1842).

2 Rob. 418 (State v. Judge of the Court of Probates of New Orleans) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Succession of Gorrisson
15 La. Ann. 27 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1860)
State ex rel. Boissac v. Petit
14 La. Ann. 565 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1859)