
    (70 South. 548)
    No. 20410.
    ROE et al. v. CALDWELL.
    (Dec. 13, 1915.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Guardian and Ward i&wkey;26 — Tutorship— Death of Guardian — Effect.
    Where after the decision of a cause in which the plaintiffs were minors and represented by a tutrix, their mother, and a cotutor, their stepfather; but before judgment was signed, the tutrix died, the tutorship ceased ipso facto.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Guardian and Ward, Cent. Dig'. § 75; Dec. Dig. &wkey;*26.]
    2. Judgment (&wkey;12 — Minors — Necessity of Parties.
    Where after decision on action by minors, and before judgment, their tutrix died, as there were no plaintiffs having capacity to stand in judgment, none could be rendered.
    [Bd. Note. — For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 15-21, 56, 159; Dee. Dig. &wkey;12.]
    3. Appeal and Ebrob <&wkey;123 — Dismissal.
    As, under Code Prac. arts. 544, 546, judgments must be entered and signed, where no judgment could be rendered, an appeal therefrom was nugatory.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 875-S81; Dec. Dig. &wkey;> 123.]
    Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; John R. Land, Judge.
    Action by Mrs. Indiana Roe, tutrix, and another, against W. T. Caldwell. From the judgment, defendant appeals. On motion to dismiss the appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Joseph H. Levy, of Shreveport, for appellant. W. A. Mabry and John B. Files, both of Shreveport, for appellees.
   On Motion to Dismiss.

PROVOSTY, J.

This suit is in behalf of minors. At its inception they were represented in it by their mother and tutrix and by their stepfather, cotutor with their mother. After the judge had announced his decision and handed. down his written reasons, but before judgment had been signed, the mother died. This had the effect of putting an end to the tutorship, and leaving the minors unrepresented. The cotutor ipso facto ceased to be tutor. Hatcher v. Jackson, 21 La. Ann. 737; Marcade on article 396, C. N.; Mourlon on same article.

Motion is made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that at the time the order for appeal was made the minors were unrepresented. Better say they were unrepresented before judgment, and that therefore no judgment could be rendered, as no judgment can be rendered except as between litigants having capacity to stand in judgment. In Edwards v. Whited, 29 La. Ann. 651, this court said:

“The court had no right to proceed after the death of Edwards. The decree * * * is an absolute nullity.”

See, also, Johnson v. Murphey, 124 La. 143, 49 South. 1007; La. Ins. Co. v. Costa, 32 La. Ann. 5; Succession of Pickett, 41 La. Ann. 882, 6 South. 655. In Dorsey v. Hills, 4 La. Ann. 106, this court said:

“The decree * * * acquired no force * * * until it was entered upon the records” — citing the articles of C. P. according to which (article 544) “all judgments * * * must be * * * entered on the records,” and (article 546) “the judge must sign all * * * final judgments.”

In Consolidated, etc., Planters v. Mason, 24 La. Ann. 518, this court said:

“The judgment was not signed, and the appeal was nugatory.”

See Succession of Bougere, 29 La. Ann. 378.

The appeal is dismissed.  