Succession of Burrell
Succession of Burrell, 43 So. 882 (La. 1907).
Cited by
- Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 296 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
- Robichaux v. Huppenbauer 245 So. 2d 385 La. 1971
- Johnson v. Nora 87 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
- Haynes v. Smith 85 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
- Hobson v. Walker 41 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
- Galouye v. A. R. Blossman 32 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1947
- Myer v. Minard 21 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
- Meyer v. Kemper Ice Co. 158 So. 378 La. 1934
- Morris v. Putsman 116 So. 577 La. 1928
- Germann v. 557 Tire Co. 120 So. 13 La. 1928
- Monlezun v. Jahncke Dry-Docks, Inc. 111 So. 886 La. 1927
Opinion text
PROVOSTY, J. In this case, the mother and tutrix having died, the undertutor asks that a family meeting be convoked to recommend a proper person for appointment as tutor, and that the maternal grandfather of the minor be excluded from said tutorship. All three of the grounds for exclusion from tutorship prescribed by article 303, Civ. Code, are alleged against the grandfather, viz.: (1) Conduct notoriously bad; (2) incapacity to manage his own affairs; (3) neglect to have caused an inventory to be made of the property of the minor. The property of the minor consists of some jewelry, worth about $200, of the existence of which, as belonging to the minor, the grandfather knew nothing. It is needless to say that failure to have caused an inventory to be made under these circumstances is not good ground for exclusion. The other allegations are not proved. Judgment affirmed.