Rist v. Hartner
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Sixteenth District Court, Parish of East Feliciana. Brame, J. _ Every agreement between tutor and minor, after majority, not preceded by am account accompanied by vouchers, delivered ten days previous, is null and. void.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Sixteenth District Court, Parish of East Feliciana. Brame, J. _ Every agreement between tutor and minor, after majority, not preceded by am account accompanied by vouchers, delivered ten days previous, is null and. void. R. C. C. 361;16 An. 325; 15 An. 479; 18 An. 587;2L. 513; 12 An. 401. Where a minor sues his tutor for an account of his tutorship, on the ground that the former settlement was made in error, and while the minor was ignorant of his rights and of the facts, a tender is not a condition precedent to the institution of such suit. 4 R. 290 ; 33 An. 745; lb. 769; 41…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
The plaintiff brought this suit within four years after reaching his majority against the defendant for an account of tutorship.
The defence is that a settlement has been effected under which a sum of money was paid to the plaintiff, who has receipted therefor, and that before the defendant can be called upon for an account the plaintiff must pay over to him the amount which thus passed.
The plaintiff thereupon filed a supplemental petition in which he attacked the settlement alleged and sought its nullity.
Judgment having been rendered…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Marsh v. PierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Harty v. HartySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1831
3Cited by5 opinions
- Russo v. RussoSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1944
- Russo v. RussoSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1945
- Hanks v. AlexanderLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1934
- Hagerty v. ClementSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1940
- Wise v. Van SniderLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1931