
    HOOKE vs. HOOKE ET AL.
    AppEAL FR0I,i THE PARISH COURT POR THE PARISH AND CITY OF NEW-ORLEANS.
    In the term curator ad hoc, the word negotium is understood; as the word litem would be if the term curator ad hoc were used.
    Owners of undivided parts of an estate, have at all times the right of requiring a partition; and no exception exists with regard to minors.
    Proceedings in suits of partition are now conducted according to the rules prescribed by the Code of Practice and the acts of the legislature, since the' great repealing act of 1828.
    This case came on to be heard on the second appeal. For a statement of the facts of the case and the judgment of the Supreme Court, reversing that of the Court of Pro-hates, on a plea to its jurisdiction, remanding the cause for further proceedings, see ante, 420.
    After the case was remanded it was tried on its merits, and a judgment of the inferior court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and referring the parties to Felix Grima, Esq., a notary public in the city of New-Orleans, to continue the proceedings of the partition.
    From this judgment the curator ad hoc appealed.
    /. W. Smith, for the plaintiff and appellee, contended that:
    1, The terms curator ad hoc and curator ad litem are used as synonymous in our Codes. By the rules of etymology, they refer to the same thing. But if this view be erroneous^ the term employed in this action, to wit, curator ad hoc, is that which is found in the Code of Practice. Code of Practice, 116, 924.
    2. The necessity for a family meeting is not made apparent in the proceedings which have taken place in .this action. The right to a partition being given by the Louisi
      
      ana Code in all cases, it is not to be impaired by a want of the useless formality of a family meeting, to deliberate on that which the law has previously decided.
    
    
      eJato^ad %i™, 
      ns the word utm term mrator ad
    
    
      3. The rules in relation to family meetings in cases like the present, are found only in the Louisiana Code. This Code quoad its rules of proceeding not found in the Code*of Practice, was abrogated by the repealing act of 1828. The rules as to family meetings, are rules of proceeding in the action for a partition; the Code of Practice has no provision applicable to the case, and the Supreme Court will not, by a latitude in construing legislative enactments, increase the existing difficulties in the way of disposing of the property of minors. Acts of 1828, p. 160, sec. 25. Code of Practice, 964. 2. Martin, JV. S., 79, Agaisse et al. vs. Guerdon.
    
    
      Hennen, contra.
    
   Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was lately remanded from this court on the reversal of a judgment by which the Court of Probates had sustained a plea to its jurisdiction.

On the return of the case the Court of Probates ordered the partition which the plaintiffs had prayed for, and the defendants are now appellants from a judgment of which they complain, merely because the court disregarded the two followinging exceptions:

1. The defendants being minors, ought to have had a curator'ad litem appointed to them, and the curator ad hoc was improperly given to them.

2. No family meeting is prayed for, and the court ought not to have proceeded without the opinion of a family meeting on the expediency of the partition.

It does not appear that the first judge erred in overruling either of these exceptions.

I. In the terms curator ad hoc, the word negotium is understood, as the word litem would be if the terms curator ad were used. These terms are synonymous, and all so used in the Code of Practice, 116, 964.

Owners of unanVéstatefhaveat all times the right of requiring a partition, and no exception exists m regard to minors.

Proceedings in suits forpartítíon, are now conducted according to pdpbrlct¡co°and thereto ofthcLegislaturc, since ing St°on838.al"

jj_ Owners of undivided parts of an estate, have at all times the right of requiring a partition, and we are not acquainted with any exception to this principle in regard to minors. Proceedings in a suit for partition are now conducted according to the Code of Practice, and the Acts of the Legislature, passed since the great repealing act of 1828. . j\ either the Code nor any of these acts require the intervenJ ti0n of a family meeting for the partition of estates, in which J o 1 ' minors are interested. We do not mean to say, because it would be unnecessary in the present case, whether if a licitaj x. tion was necessary to effect a partition, the sale could or c0l9d not take place without the call of a family meeting.

' R ^ therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the Court of Probates he affirmed, with costs.  