
    No. 7639.
    Edward Cotton et al. vs. Annie F. Cotton et al.
    The husband, as head and master of the community, has the Tight to dispose of its movable effects by onerous title, or even by gratuitous and particular title.
    Whatever be the rights of creditors, the wife can only attack such gratuitous dispositions of movables, on allegation and proof that they were fraudulently made for the puipose of , injuring her. ‘ ’
    APPEAL from the Third District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Monroe, J.
    
      T. M. Gill, for Plaintiffs and Appellants:
    1.The probate Courthad exclusive jurisdiction of this cause.
    2.The Court erred in admitting in plaintiffs’ behalf the records, petition of V. F. Cotton, tutor etc.
    3.The Court erred in excluding evidence to prove that neither plaintiffs nor their father had funds or other means with which to purchase the property; erred in excluding the evidence to prove that the property was acquired and paid for after the marriage of the defendant, Annie T. Cotton, and heríate husband, Valentine F. Cotton, and by community funds, and notwitb the funds of either Valentine F. Cotton or the plaintiffs; erred in excluding the evidence to prove that defendant and her late husband, after thoir marriage, procured the materials for the construction of buildings on tbe property. 6 An. 728 ; 15 An. 169,580; 16 An.206; 18 An. 286-287; 1 L. 2.19-249; 4 An. 501; 15 An. 702 j 29An.4; 29 An. Tinman vs- Bladis, n. r ; 27 An. 12 L; 26 An. 547-548; 24 An. 210-211; 9 An. 29 ; 4 An. 441 ; 15 L. 311; 2 L. 3 ; 19 L. 387.
    4.Fraud was sufficiently alleged to admit proof of the same, and all proof offered on the part of the defendant, Annie T. Cotton. I£. C. C., Sec. 4, Art. 2404; 2 ÍT. S. 13.
    
      W. 8. Benedict and Jos. B. Hornor, for Defendant and Appellee.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

The plaintiffs are children of the late V. F. Cotton, by his first marriage with Dicey M. Brown, aud are heirs of their said mother. In 1840 their mother sued her husband, V. E. Cotton, for separation of property, and obtained a judgment against him for $17,399.58.

After her death, to-wit: in 1853, V. F. Cotton, as tutor of plaintiffs, then minors, applied to the proper court of liis domicile, representing that he had in his possession above $2,000 belonging to them, which he desired to invest in the property herein claimed, and he asked for a family meeting, to authorize the purchase, etc.

After obtaining the necessary authority on the 10th of. June, 1853, in his capacity of tutor, he purchased for and in behalf of the said minors, the said property at the price of $2,000, payment of which the vendors acknowledged to have received in cash.

The plaintiffs bring the present suit to enforce their title to said property, against their stepmother, widow by second marriage of Y. E. Cotton, who resists substantially on the ground that the property belongs to the community subsisting between her and her late husband, having been purchased by the latter, after her marriage, with funds belonging to said community and not to said minors, and fraudulently purchased in the name of said minors, to cover up and conceal the same from the pursuit of creditors.

We agree with the District Judge, that neither as administratrix of Y. E. Cotton, nor as widow in community, could defendant be heard to set up such a defense.

Her husband, as head and master of the community, had a right to dispose of its movable effects by onerous title, or even by gratuitous and particular title. C. C. 2404. The only right of action which the wife.'has against such dispositions is on proof that they were made in fraud for the purpose of injuring her. No such charge is here made. On the contrary, she alleges that the object was to injure creditors, and “ to secure a home for himself and family.” Whether the $2,000 invested in this property belonged to the minors, or was owed to them by their father, or was given to them by him, their title to it was equally good_ as against the defendant, and the property bought with it for them and in their names is their property.

The .act of defendant in having this property inventoried 'in the succession of Y. E. Cotton, after this suit had been brought, could not divest the jurisdiction of the District Court over the cause.

We find no error.

Judgment affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Rehearing refused.

Levy, J., absent.  