Lamkin v. Succession of Filhiol

Citations

• 123 La. 181
• 48 So. 881
• 1909 La. LEXIS 693

Syllabus

<p>1. Minors — Actions—Tutor Ad Hoc — Authority to Appoint.</p> <p>There is no law authorizing the appointment of a “tutor ad hoc” to a minor for the purpose as a plaintiff of fixing his status and instituting as plaintiff an action against third persons. Appellant was appointed as such by the district court; but, on his bringing an action under his appointment, defendant excepted to his right to stand in judgment and to the authority pf the judge to make the appointment. The court sustained the exceptions, rescinded his order, and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff has appealed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Infants, Dec. Dig. § 77.*]</p> <p>2. Minors — Actions—'Tutor Ad Hoc — Termination oe Authority.</p> <p>Appellant is in error in referring to the order appointing him a tutor ad hoc as a judgment, and in seeking to apply to it the rules applicable to judgments. It was not a judgment, but a mere temporary conservatory order, which the judge had authority and the right to modify or vacate at his discretion. Appellant was at best an officer of the court. He has no vested right to his position as an officer, holding it by a fixed legal tenure. He held it at the pleasure of the judge. When, in the opinion of the latter, the necessity for his occupying the position ceased, or he became satisfied that the order had been improvidently granted, he had the right to rescind it. Appellant has no legal right to control the judge in that matter, or to question his authority in the premises. He had no legal interest in the subject-matter. He was a mere volunteer, who had tendered his services to the court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Infants, Dec. Dig. § 82.*]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>