Succession of Rice

Appellant claims to be a creditor of this succession for services rendered, as agent of Dr. John Rice, during fifteen years, at one thousand dollars per annum. The District court rejected the claim.

We find no error in this judgment. There is nothing in the evidence to support the claim. The case has a great resemblance to that of the Succession of Fink, 13 An. 103.

The claim is for compensation as mandatory. But Article 2960 of the Civil Code says : that a mandate is gratuitous, unless there has been a contrary stipulation. Besides, this claim is stale and suspicious. There is no evidence that…