
    
      WATTS vs. McMICKEN ET AT.
    
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE THIRD DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE FOURTH PRESIDING.
    Complaints as to the conduct of a Curator, can only be redressed when as.Curator lie presents his account. Particular acts of the representatives of estates cannot be singled out by individual creditors, and made the basis of a suit
    This was an action by the creditors of an estate charging the curator with fraud and collusion; and praying that certain doings, which had operated to their injury, might be de-dared null and void. The defendant put in a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, which being sustained, the plaintiff appealed.
    Eastern District,
    January 1831.
    Pierce, for appellant,
    contended:
    1. That the petition showed an action against the defendant for fraudulent conduct in the administration of an estate,by which tile plaintiffs were enjoined.
    2. The court had jurisdiction.
    Downs, contra;
    1. A probate sale is a judicial proceeding,including always, a judgment of that court, and can be annulled only by that court.-State v. Favrot, 1st La. Rep. 49.
    2. A sale of a vacant estate is ordered by the judge of the Court of Probates, on application, by petition, for that purpose.
    3. The court which renders a judgment, alone has jurisdictIon of the action of nullity to set it aside.-C. P. art. 608, 609, 610.
    4. The proper time and place to object to a probate sale is in the court of probates, before the homologation of the proceedings..-Lafon's Ex. v. Phillips et al., 2d Martin, N. S~ 225, 234; 12th Martin 329.
   Porter, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plailLtiff Watts, in conjunction with another creditor of the estate of Reno, complain of the defendant, curator of the succession, of having entered into an agreement with the other creditors, to take notes and obligations from a debtor of the estate; and with having violated that agreement, by causing execution to issue against the debtor, and selling certain property, of which he became the purchaser hrough the agency of Achison, the co-defendant. The petitioners state, that they have suffered great injury by these acts of the curator, and they pray that the sale made under execution of the debtor, may b~ set aside; that the de-

Complaints as to the conduct of a curator can only he redressed when as curator he pre-aents his account, ttiertlCUrepresenta-f tivesof estates can not he singled out by individual ere-the basis of a suit,

fendaht, McMicken, be compelled to comply with his r agreement, and take his share of the notes which were offered to the creditors, and finally that they have such other relief as their case might require.

A plea to the juridiction of the court was presented and sustained. The plaintiff appealed.

It appears to us the court did not err. The act cona-plained of is in relation to the defendant’s conduct as cura-1 _ ■ tor, viz.: in improvidently issuing a writ of execution from . . _ . . ♦ . r r the court, under which he held his appointment, m tavor ot the estate he represents. The time to get redress for this, wjp fog when as curator he presents his account. Particu-_ r far acts of the representatives of estates cannot be singled out by individual creditors, and made the basis of a suit. There can be only one to render an account, and when that is presented, all the acts of the curator, whether of non fea-sance or malfeasance, by which the creditors are injured, can be opposed to him. This doctrine has been long established in this court. ■ The reasons for it are obvious. There might be as many suits as there are Creditors, if a contrary rule was admitted. Again, the act complained of cannot be known to be an injury until the settlement of the estate, for non constat, that notwithstanding the alleged impropriety on the part of the representative, there may not be enough to pay each creditor his claim. — See the case of Hodge’s heirs vs. Dmmford, l.N.S. 126, and the authorities then cited.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the' judgment of the District Court be affirmed with costs.  