7 La. 248 | La. | 1834
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case, Dugat, one of the defendants is sued as having intermeddled with, and taken on himself, the management of the person and estate of Jean Babineau, for whom the
The correctness of this judgment, in relation to Dugat., is not questioned, and the right of mortgage claimed, depends solely on the fact, whether the deaf and dumb person was legally interdicted.
The evidence of the case, shows that he had, during his whole life, been considered as incapable of managing his estate or person, with ordinary judgment and discretion, in consequence of the want of hearing and speech ; but no formal judgment of interdiction, seems ever to have been pronounced by any competent tribunal. It is true, that a curator was appointed to him, at a time when he was over the age of majority, and after the death of the person so appointed, Dugat, the maternal uncle of the individual presumed to be interdicted, assumed to act for him. The mortgage claimed on the property of the intermeddler, is one created by law, and must be confined to cases expressly provided for. The article of the old Code, relied on by the plaintiff, is found at page 456, and is expressed in the following words, “ there is a legal mortgage on the property of those, who, without being tutors or curators, have taken on themselves, the administration of the property of minors, persons interdicted or absent, from the day when they did the first act of that administration.”
The law prescribes certain formalities, which must be pursued, in order to obtain a judgment of interdiction against
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs, &c.