
    No. 11,818.
    Succession of Dr. Eugene Rabasse.
    On Intervention and Opposition of the Delegate for the Consul of France.
    'The provision in. our treaty with France, adopting that in our treaty with Belgium, conferring on the delegate appointed by the French consul authority to represent, until they send their powers, French citizens, heirs of a succession opened here, is a provision relating to a subject within the treaty-making power, and must prevail if in conflict with a State law. Constitution United States, Art. 6, par. 2; 1 Kent’s Com. 165; Ware vs. Hilton, 3 Dallas, 109; Provost vs. Grenaux, 19 How. 1; 100 U. S. 483; 133 U.S. 264,266; Treaty with France, 1853,10 Stat.999, Sec. 12; Treaty with Belgium of 1880, Art. XV.
    
      The effect of such provision is to remove any necessity for the appointment by our courts of an attorney to represent such French heirs, and to that extent all that the case requires to be determined, the provision is maintained. See Civil Code, Art. 1210; 13 La. 73; 15 La. 527.
    APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Ellis, J.
    
    
      J. Numa Augustin for Delegate, etc., Intervenor and Third Opponent, Appellant.
    
      Theodule Buisson, Chrétien & Suthon, Attorneys for absent heirs, Appellees.
    Argued and submitted May 24, 1895.
    Opinion handed down June 3, 1895.
    Opinion refusing rehearing June 29, 1895.
    Adolphe Auguste Rabasse, commonly known as Dr. Eugene Rabasse, a native of France, died February 26, 1895, in the city of New Orleans. At the time of his death the deceased was a citizen of the Republic of France; he died unmarried and left no legitimate ascendants nor descendants, leaving only collateral relatives, consisting (1) of his niece, residing at Chaumont (Haute Marne), France; and (2) Mrs. Blanche Louisa Langlois, wife of Louis Jean Joseph Moisson, residing at Brienne le Chateau ([Aube), and Mrs. Olarie Louise Armelle Langlois, wife of Charles Martial Pineaut, residing at Lesmonts (Aube), France, his grandnieces.
    The deceased left a will, wherein, with the exception of a legacy made to one Eugene Rabasse, he wills the residue of his estate in equal shares to his two sisters, Mesdames Saulnier and Collot. Both of these having departed this life, their children and grandchildren inherit by representation. Mrs. Saulnier died without issue.
    The succession of Dr. Eugene Rabasse was opened in the Civil District Court for the parish of Orleans on the 27th day of February, 1895, by Armand Bossu, mandatory of -Mrs. Hypolite Bossu, one of the heirs herein, claiming the administratorship. He was subsequently appointed dative executor.
    Mesdames Moisson and Pineaut, born Langlois, French citizens residing in France, were not represented by mandatories or representatives of their own selection.
    Under the circumstances, intervenor, as delegate of the consul of the French Republic, filed a petition of intervention and opposition, claiming as a matter of right to represent the said absent heirs, Mesdames Moisson and Pincaut.
    The judge a quo dismissed this intervention and opposition, from which judgment this appeal was taken.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Miller, J.

The deceased, a resident of New Orleans,'left heirs residing in France. Our treaty with that country provides in case of death of any citizen of France in the United States, without any testamentary executor by him appointed, the consul shall have the right to appear, personally or by delegate, in all proceedings on behalf of the absent or minor heirs. The stipulation is reciprocal, applying to estates of Americans dying in France. The French consul here appointed a delegate to represent the French heirs, and he applied for recognition to the Civil District Court, in which the succession was being administered. That court denied the application and appointed an attorney for the absent heirs. From the judgment dismissing the intervention of the appellant, claiming recognition as delegate, he prosecutes this appeal.

There is a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground there is no pecuniary interest involved. There is involved a question of the construction and the execution of our treaty with France in respect to the interest of French heirs in a succession of over one hundred thousand dollars. The motion is denied.

If the treaty is susceptible of the construction of the appellant the. result would be to avoid the appointment of the attorney for the absent heirs, and require the recognition of the appellant as the delegate of the French consul. In our view the stipulation in this treaty puts the delegate in the position of an agent of the French heirs, with the same effect as if he held their mandate to represent them as heirs. That was the manifest purpose, and the language of the treaty plainly expresses that intention. There is no power to appoint an attorney for absent heirs when the heirs are present or •represented. Civil Code, Art. 1210; Robouam’s Heirs vs. Robouam’s Executor, 12 La. 73; Addison vs. New Orleans Savings Bank, 15 La. 527.

It is idle to call in question the competency of the treaty-making power, nor do we think any question can be raised that the subject of this treaty under discussion here is properly within the scope of the power. That subject is the rights of French subjects to be represented here by the consul of their country. On that subject the treaty provision is plain. The treaty by the organic law is the supreme law of the land, binding all courts, State and Federal. Constitution United States, Art. 6, par. 2; 1 Kent’s Commentaries, 165; Ware vs. Hylton, 3 Dallas, 197; 19 How. 1; 100 U. S. 483, 488; 133 U. S. 264, 266; Treaty with France, 1853, 10 Stats. 999, Sec. 12; Treaty with Belgium, 1880, Art. XV.

The treaty discloses no purpose to require our courts to appoint as the attorney for absent heirs the delegate of the French consul. Its purpose is accomplished by placing the delegate before the court as representing the absent heirs, and precluding the appointment of any attorney to represent them.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the lower court, dismissing the intervention of the delegate of the French consul, be avoided and reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that said delegate be recognized and as such delegate, authorized to represent the absent heirs in this succession, and that.the succession pay the costs.

On Application for Rehearing.

Our decision in this case affirms that the French heirs of this succession are to be deemed represented by the delegate of the French consul, with the same effect as if the delegate held their power. This view of the treaty, to which our decision is confined, displaces the power of the lower court (exerted in ordinary cases) to appoint any attorney to represent the French heirs of this succession.

The rehearing is refused.  