*1 180 So.2d 700 MINERAL BOARD STATE

LOUISIANA

Shirley al. E. ALBARADO et

No. 47757.

Dec. Tate, Tate, Mamou, C. Tate

Paul & John E. Jackson, E. Baldwin Allen and J. John Jr., Jackson, Orleans, for intervenors- New appellants. Charles, Jaubert, Plough, C. Lake

Charles Mulla, Jumonville, & Moreau J. Jumonville Strauch, Thereafter, 26, 1962, Orleans, Met- E. New Clarence the Louisi- June airie, Bowes, Harvey, A. for re- ana State Mineral Board instituted the James spondents. proceeding. alleged concursus $103,753.67 had it received as á bonus

HAMLIN, Justice: *2 lease, had accumulated interest in juris- supervisory of our In the-exercise $2,997.11, the amount of and believed that La.Const, VII, 11, (Art. Sec. diction it royalties would continue to receive from 1921), we .Certiorari to the directed Court prayed $106,150.57 It lease. that be ac- Circuit, order that we Appeal, Fourth in cepted placed and Registry in ordered it judgment insofar as might review its Court; liability, that it be relieved applies Pier- to the demands of present future, and to defendants and all 5. rottie.1 173 So.2d persons; attorneys other appointed be absentees; represent non-residents protracted in many suit This is one and, persons that certain enumerated be litigation, previously which has been Approximately persons, cited. ten includ- therefore, only ported; facts neces- those Relator, Ulysses Pierrottie, intervened sary determination of in proceeding. They this concursus assert- proceeding will be stated. money ed performed demands for services 7, 1955, the case of November in On and monies litigation advanced in the 748, Powell, 84 So.2d 177 Dugas v. 228 La. well securing as the of the instant lease 12, 1955), December (rehearing denied with Company. The California (collateral recognized the heirs be the heirs) Zenon Boutte to Francois recognized approximately trial court land, compris- 1,830 owners of certain tract of persons as heirs of Francois Zenon ing approximately on Barataría proportionate acres Boutte fixed the interest Island Parish. The Louisiana (Ulysses of each in the Estate2 Jefferson Board, pursuant to State Mineral recognized LSA-R.S. was an heir an infinites 30:181, repealed by now Act 358 of proportion). appeal imal No was taken oil, gas then granted an and mineral lease judgment. from that of the The trial February rejected Company interventions, holding The California court allegedly judgment 1960. The lease covered some its should in no wise or impair rights 253 acres of the Boutte Tract. manner affect or of the 5, 8, Appeal, 1. A number of other similar- were Court of ly judgment interests, states, com- affected of the Court “Some of these Appeal. They apply puted $100,000.00, of tiorari; did not for Cer- on the are as basis hence, only relatively ex- we shall as 11 few consider little cents ” * Relator, Ulysses application of Pierrottie. $100.00. ceed assign- Zeno Boutte in the any existing Francois sum of parties thereto attorney, at- interest, FORTY-SEVEN THOUSAND ONE power of ment of held that further HUNDRED SEVENTY-EIGHT torney-client contract. resulting ($47,178.64) AND obligations DOLLARS rights and 64/100 Ulysse Pierrotti and for em- reserved private instruments ployee heir, Pierrotti, they en- Felix favor contracting parties in whose sum of AND FOUR THOUSAND ured. ($4,000.00) DOLLARS. NO/100 Intervenors, the Court appeal by On trial successfully judgment “That Pierrotti Appeal reversed intervention recovered the under lease regard to court judgment the Louisiana Mineral It affirmed State Board Cobb. Alvin A. respects. Dugas the suit of Noemie et al in all other Judice * Edgar H. Powell et al the Court Herein, contends Relator already dispersed that he has lease oil as follows: Appeal erred trapping funds and funds to the heirs con- apply civilian failing to 1. In of Francois Zenon Boutte. quantum quasi-contract cepts of *3 Ulysses Pierrot- your petitioner, Ulysses claim of “That Pier- to the meruit unjust impover- rotti, spent tie, traveling, has funds sec- so as to avoid unjust fees, of help, attorney’s enrichment retarial and other ishment and expenses recipients proceeds necessary of in of the to recover land herein. above suit and is entitled to com- fund involved pensation work, expenses, for such ex- adjudicate claims failing In all pended by Ulysses Pierrotti.” fund, against due con- without “practical impossi- sideration of the intervention, rejecting In the above adjudi- bility? having these claims judg- trial court stated in its reasons for proceeding. in cated other following: ment the petition intervention, Ulysses In his “Separate were filed interventions following: alleged Pierrottie in * be com- “ * Ulysses Pierrotti, pensated personal services rendered Pierrotti, himself and for Felix desires in behalf of all the heirs o'f Francois thirty period against during to file a claim the monies de- Zenon Boutte heirs, posited carefully (30) years. herewith other than as After consider- following presented, reasons the evidence the Court is hereinafter agent opinion initially as for the heirs of these inter- expended agents in venors time and effort the services rendered heirship obliga- developing of their contractual Francois fulfillment Boutte, tions, opposed Zenon in order to to those exerted sole- solicit ly heirs, munerative contracts of mandate all without re- to assist agents being any existing gards these heirs to act as had for con- connection particularly with the Estate. The serv- tract. This is true when respect years protracted period thirty ices rendered in were for personal heirs, litigation, financial benefit of these is taken involving 2000 performed consideration, intervenors and were not in the in- into as exists assisting with the intent of A mere indirect or inci- stant case. person heirs. The fulfillment of a contractual at- dental benefit third obligation agency agreement, under an of a con- tributable to the fulfillment may indirectly tract, party persons benefit to which he is not ratified, contract, who are knowingly accepted to the does has not parties propor- legally not render these third render insufficient Court, tionately responsible liable for its value of such value. therefore, service. these concludes that inter- have to sustain the bur- venors failed “It is conceded that these Intervenors required ap- invoke the proof den.of may, justification, claim that their unjust plication enrichment doc- primary impetus efforts rejected.” trine, and their claims are which ultimately caused the estate of (Emphasis ours.) Francois Zenon Boutte to recognis- ed as the owner the property; how- Appeal held that none ever, they were motivated the com- qualify Intervenors could pensation them, paid stipulated doctrine, “fund” re so-called In Interstate in their Attorney Power of Contracts. Co., Trust Banking & There presented has been no evidence In speaking So.2d 276. Pierrot- to sustain the conclusion that quasi tie’s to recover in demand contract agents ever other acted than in their quantum meruit, contract on it stated: “Ob- fiduciary capacity, nor does the record viously alleged nor Mr. Pierrottie has not *4 reflect by action taken them to as- assignment in- does he claim to hold an of sist all of having the heirs in land and has terest in the or the fund rights recognized. of inheritance right. participate an inter- to shown a difficult,

“It is impos- proceeding. indeed if not venor in the concursus sible, rejecting to but re- judgment draw the distinction between his intervention

serving rights private year. Testimony contract or his to this effect is cor- power by must roborated attorney of is correct and be some Heirs— of Boutte affirmed.” witnesses of record. Relator testified that through he traveled seven states in which Pierrottie, Counsel for brief marriage he checked certificates and birth argument, and in oral submit a token records. Pierrottie’s services were initial- expenses acceptable. allowance of be would provoked ly by company the desire of an oil This accession is made because the dif- of develop to an oil field on the Boutte acre- proof ficulty of of their claim.3 age. of record evidence reflects that at trial, Ulysses the time Included in the evidence of record are of Pierrottie was seventy-nine years age. Attorney given He stated that two Powers of to Heirs; began by performance Pierrottie several hundred Boutte of his services 1930; original, 10, 1938, gather for the Boutte Heirs in we dated November supplemented by gives the services consisted in the second which substantial oil, making up family right grant gas a tree of the Pierrottie renewing year Boutte Heirs and it from mineral leases.4 brief, attorneys payment 3. In him counsel states: —“Counsel read- on behalf ily 10%, not in admits that the valuation of the the heirs excess of we serv- spectfully ices rendered Pierrottie —or more submit that a determination Mr. speaking properly that Mr. the valuation of the Pierrottie entitled 10% of the sequently fund and of all funds sub- benefit derived the heirs therefrom just difficulty —is difficult. The realized would be is increased equitable that, theoretically any rate, the fact within the intendment at parties. placed If the matter the Court does not before it have question basis, determining submit that a token al- the interest of we to Mr. Pierrottie Pierrottie lowance various claimants like Mr. approximately TEN in posit de- amount the lands which the fund on ($10,000.00) point, Mr. AND was derived. On this THOUSAND NO/100 justified by the evi- him- would be Pierrottie can do little but DOLLARS throw mercy upon record. Mr. Pierrottie dence in the Thus self of the Court and present proceed- by any realize from the would ings abide reasonable determination sug- approximately do, however, respectfully TWENTY THOU- made. We ($20,000.00) gest give DOL- AND consideration SAND Court NO/100 LARS, assigning possibility than half of own valuation fixed less to the percentage including expenses. claimants, interest and Since Mr. of his only deposit represents (assuming they fund on are entitled to Pierrottie any) property sub- under mineral lease on a and therefore of the bonus parcel land, fund, all, Mr. Pierrottie and for and—in addition once stantial revenues further reimburse Mr. would have look to thereto —that recovery expense from the incurred Considering of his demand.” on behalf of all the heirs. balance “ * undersigned page we the Mr. Pierrottie’s contract at Hy- record, contemplating Boutte, apparently Louise and or Antoine Sr. *5 executed, securing $10,000.00 potential the $9,000.00 trapping bonus for lease was A oil, gas the Company and mineral lease. Of advanced of an The California and names, place Boutte and or Francois and Francois Boutte, Boutte, investigation and lawful Modeste aeinthe Boutte, make constitute Celestina Pierrotti and Felix Louise and anating Francois Zenon tute confirmed and to recover whatever have been left Sr., Zenon property property public sale, suits of the or ents issued and to or defend as occasion take all to sel sion succession; to exceed 10% sonal sary sale, us tion or division fix recovers if from whatever sources appointed, debts said particularly and and and to and to receive the death, necessary, the terms patents Hyacinthe Boutte, proceed Boutte, property forming inherited as brothers Boutte, Juan Leon Boutte and Celestina single piece, part from the Modeste said Zenon steps mixed, Boutte, Boutte, property, and to institute and or Francois Zenon Boutte prosecute left charges by attorneys at auction or and appear of the title of deceased; and partition is of Boutte, to the and an act of emanating of the employ Antoine Hilaire especially and of the amount each of and to the have Louis requisite and Boutte, Boutte, stead, Spanish by Federal in court either effects suits to record, Pierrotti), said conditions for sale property, real, per- said title Juan appoint made, counsel, may require; of said price Hilaire pay Antoine Antoine Hilaire us, and in our to conduct an Zenon said and from otherwise, to recover the Louis Hilaire property succession. or at land emanat- employ of land em- from Leon and to insti- Government, congress Government, presents do to, and counsel obtain constituted and succession, private portion disposition prosecute prosecute of such a if the true Francois (Ulysses Antoine Boutte, Boutte, Boutte, sisters; Boutte, Boutte, of said succes- neces- whom parti- coun- may pat- said pay and to at or ises, already prosecution torneys, the real estate family tree; of whatsoever Antoine Boutte, thorization of the 10% Pierrotti, attorneys of the contracted, sary document, firming amount recovered said and present, Felix and Zennon Boutte 10, ney tion, to their substitute shall there ment has been sion two-wit: of Francois er to said amend the rottie rottie; “We “IT IS “We “That suit has been instituted “That be done we said thing revocation, to of the to do on a % Attorney, attorneys, Ulysses exists Pierrotti, on November Ulysse exists might property recovered, whole, further already fully * Ulysse Boutte and or Francois Zenon UNDERSTOOD, we, whatsoever we to contingent and given by is removed from undersigned Power of undersigned done before of this another contract following Zennon Boutte into and ^[*] granted to all intents and employing virtue hereof.” hire amount full or could do if Pierrottie and firm obtained, placing perform declare that on before the full hereby dated November Pierrottie and holds contract the additional give that, undersigned, power the estate; counsel power and about the Pierrotti who this document said succession. ^[*] lawfully Attorney and base of the amount requisite described a Power they said therefore, ratifying existence heirs of the attorneys all and gathered 1938, by giving grant that a contract and Pierrotti recover; 40% attorneys and to ^[*] means substitution do or Felix Pier- First Pow- Felix Pier- and Felix the and neces- power granted authoriza- personally November 6% % every desire to property, the heirs unto purposes 10, Francois and con- said the au- already for the posses- 33%% up to our Attor- prem- whole cause judg- 10% ^[*] said pay and the for at- act or him, received, Guillory1, at the amounts advanced for Herman traveled amounts traveled, persons paid $6,000.00 expenses, the torney miles Pierrottie, was seen, many purposes expenses; the remainder was dis for which chronological trips the Boutte not in tributed number of were taken. among reflects, order, summarized, it extensively to nor is but it Heirs. Pierrottie traveled *6 activities, for more stated that ex services and make the He efforts distribution. thirty years cept than done Boutte for to Mr. for the advanced $300.00 —all any Guillory’s Heirs. The substance of tes- daughter, he received Pierrottie’s never timony expected expense keep respect money; did accurate to what he to not receipts someday is hoped of his receive that he to receive records and stated that some royalties. all, stolen. All in calculated were Pierrottie spent $47,178.64. actually that he He tes he, Pierrottie testified that instead tified : heirs, application filed an with Mineral “Q. confused, I am somewhat and I Board to advertise and lease land and hope the Court isn’t confused. requested that the land be leased no for less particularly You itemized the cost $100,000.00.5' than your $47,178.64. Ulysses present Pierrottie’s counsel sent Now, you can you tell me how mimeographed inquiry persons purport- to expense? arrived at that exact ing signed to have Attorney, the Powers of By “A. money the amount that was supra; inquiry part: states in time, spent and the amount of that spent I and the amount of travel- “Therefore, you signed power if ling, wearing out of four differ- attorney your and it was understand- ent cars so on.” Ulysses that Messrs. and Felix The record contains an -by Ulys- account Pierrotti compensated were to be in Pierrottie, ses forth some sets the time reasonable amount when and if right grant oil, gas, to leases, and mineral record does not reflect the exact date covering affecting Attorney. this second above-de- Power Now, this, scribed Pierrottie, 5. “Q. terms conditions before Mr. you granted do know that that for lease was considerations to be decided ' provisions 1952, of Act 531 of any them and to do and all acts neces- provided under which it where more sary premises. There is also people than five hundred own a tract given Ulysse said Pierrottie any land, fifty applica- of them can make right Felix Pierrottie the additional you tion for Do lease. that know any execute lease of nature what- way that’s the lease was advertised? soever, including trapping leases for the know; acquainted “A. I don’t I am not terms and conditions and for the con- personal agreement with that. I made siderations to be decided them.” The with Bonneearrere.” such; substantially also and funds he was property was recovered Boutte as available, heirs’ reply. responsible for the success in the case you need were Powell, Dugas La. hand, deny you “On the other if 177; and, bringing he assisted in signed, was not then you above if about lease the land to The compen- understanding as their your Company. California sation, postal card is enclosed ”* your reply. Attorney granted Powers of Ulysses by large number of the any obligation replies A denied number He not exclusive contracts. did replies Ulysses stated Some Pierrottie. exclusively signers, not work nor Attor- signature that the on the Powers of agree exclusively did he ancestors; to work them. others ney were those of Kernan, IOS voluntary, Cf. Succession of was stated that Pierrottie’s work certainly So. reasonable to consent; authority stated others without signed Powers assume that those who employed their own the writers had Attorney contemplated representatives handle their claims. Pierrottie would be remunerated some We conclude from evidence bene form. services “When one renders Pierrottie acted record that *7 another, request, implied ficial to his an at Francois Zenon ”

benefit of all of the heirs of * * contract is raised for remuneration. reflects, Boutte. record Insofar as the Bibber, Cf. Beall v. 19 434. Van La.Ann. prohibition expression there no was Wine, La.App., Import v. David Southern any heir when he commenced his work 6 sign not 171 So. 180. Those who did undertaking early his in the 1930’s. Attorney Powers of were enriched although clearly discloses that evidence owners, work; they reaped as Pierrottie’s degree, an a minute was heir to advantages services as from Pierrottie’s purely interest. act his own he did not for work, prohibited they whole. Unless only ex supra, hopes or As stated had not, supra, they did heirs can pectations eventually receiving some paying form be enriched some not without contradiction, royalty Without interests. does not allow remuneration. law Ulysses Pierrottie record discloses expense. one to enrich himself at another’s bringing about was instrumental Bauman, Bibber, supra; Inc. v. Francois Zenon Beall recognition of the Van corporation bound, ices, that, is an attor- 6. is where “Our conclusion payment quasi contract, prepare those ney employed for is articles incorporation corporation on a fair basis.” comes services and the of those serv- as a result into existence 567 568 Tilly, See, La.App., tary TLR auxiliary v. 185 So. 504. and to those of 59. Pierrottie. be held re “No one or can should We do not find that trial court sponsible done the acts of another Appeal were correct in against his prejudice will. rejecting entirety Pierrottie’s claim in its upon when himself But man takes holding that he had not borne bur of an management of the affairs proving unjust den of enrichment. We friend, own bene other as a not for his agree that he cannot recover advantage against fit “fund” (In doctrine7 re Trust Interstate solely but of an will interest Banking & Company, 235 So. other, negotiorum gestor, and he is a 276; 2d Louisiana State Mineral Board V. manages where he affairs of the Abadie, La.App., 159), but we well, ‘equity obliges other the owner find that he is entitled to remunera some * * * comply engage with the tion on the quantum basis of meruit. manager, ments contracted “It is true that there can be no re- 2299; his name.’ CC. art. Woodlief covery quantum on a meruit unless Legendre Moncure, & v. 17 La.Ann. express there was a either contract or Graugnard, 241.” Webre v. 173 La. implied parties, between the or unless

653, 138So. 433. plaintiff the services rendered “ * * * required For all the use of his inured to an negotiorum gestio instance of the benefit the defendant under such person (the gestor) one man- obligation imply circumstances an age, accord, of his ‘affair’ own Blackman, pay Duncan it. v. (the principal), another LSA-Civil La.App. obligations 421. But certain ”* Code, Article 2295. Stand- are agreement, contracted without ard Motor Co. v. Farm Car State Mut. bound, person either Co., La.App., A. Ins. 97 So.2d 435. obligation him in favor whose See, Jury Hampton, Mart., Police place. Among takes art. C.C. N.S., 389. arising obligation this kind of is that quasi from a contract. *8 It is true a en- that number of the heirs gaged representatives “Quasi their own and attor- are lawful and contracts neys, but purely we find that the services of these voluntary acts from of a man parties were, beginning, supplemen- in the obligation which there results an

7. This is conceded his counsel. 57Q recip a rendered to Defendant must be fixed person and sometimes third Brumfield, equity.” resorting to obligation Haase v. between rocal See, La.App., there 137 So.2d 680. v. Any act from which Gilmore themselves. Gasquet, agree 178 La. 151 So. 763. obligation without results an C.C. quasi contract. forms a ment asking Pierrottie is Granger Fon 2294.” v. 2293 and arts. . $10,000.00. fee be fixed at Under the facts

tenot, La.App., So.2d 215 case, and circumstances this of we find conceded must be further “It this amount is neither excessive nor un from any benefit party derives aif In the of our discre reasonable. exercise another, law services rendered tion and in the justice, interest of will we pay on implies promise to reasonably fix the amount due at that sum. received one has part of the who assigned, judgment For the reasons rea- benefit, as it amount such such Circuit, Appeal, the Court of Fourth of is re- amount sonably Such worth. jecting Ulysses Pier- the intervention of quantum theory of on the coverable rottie, is set now reversed and aside. It is in these Recovery permitted meruit. paid ordered that Pierrottie be hardship of circumstances because $10,000.00out of the be distributed sum to person per- would result to to the Heirs Francois Zenon Boutte from be forming the there should services if deposit Registry amount compensation him all withheld from proportionate the Court. costs Relator’s work, for his labor and whatever proceedings paid Bouterie furnished him.” materials deposit Registry amount on See, Carre, La.App., v. So.2d Court. Chachere, Company v. C. E. Evans 430; Eding- La.App., B. F. HAMITER, J., dissents, being Yearwood, Company Drilling

ton opinion judgment that the 118 So.2d 419. Appeal is correct. large number of Because HAWTHORNE, J., dissents. length of time involved and litigation pending, has it is not feasible been HAWTHORNE, (dissenting). Justice fixing to remand this case for the Ulys my judgment the Court separate due heir to In view the amounts each dis- Appeal affirming judgment ses Pierrottie. “In the absence a contract intervention rejected the services trict court which compensation due Plaintiff for *9 n reserving Pierrottie, expressly employ- contracts all rights attorney, should he powers of

ment or

affirmed. REVENUE of

COLLECTOR OF Louisiana State of BANK AND TRUST

PIONEER et al. COMPANY

No. 47878. 13, 1965.

Dec.

Chapman Sanford, L. Emmett E. Bat- son, Cyrus Greco, Himes, A. Baton Levi A. Rouge, appellant. Smith, Shreveport, C. for defendant

J. appellee. McCALEB, Justice. summary proceeding

This is a instituted by the Collector of Revenue for enforce-