Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/131

FIKST NAT. BANK JM- NEW OBLEANS V. BOHNE. 117 �liable beyond the property received by them. The other three heirs . were majors, and accepted the shares falling to them some three years after the successions were opened, and after a full inventory and administration by the tutor of the aforesaid, who were minors. Neither of them performed auy act as heir until after that inventory and administration. And the facts are not qjaterially altered as to George C. Bohne, by showing that he was the tutor administering the asiate. Eev. Civ. Code, art. 995. �Now, the question for decision is whether such acceptance as is recited above makes these three heirs liable for their respective sinile shares of complainant's judgment, although in excess of the amount received by them respectively by the successions. �Article 1427 of the Revised Civil Code fixes the liability of heirs to contribute in proportion to the part each has in the succession. Ar- ticle 1013 of the Revised Civil Code makes the heir who has simply accepted, liable for the debts of the succession, as if he himself had contracted them; unless before acting as heir he make a true and iaithful inventory of the effects of the succession, or has accepted -with benefit of inventory. �The formai inventory required by article 1013 and preceding arti- cles was not taken by these heirs, but one to all intents and purposea was taken at the opening of the succession ; and the account and dis- tribution Eled by the tutor and homologated by the court and ac- ■cepted by the heirs is in itself a substantial inventory. �In the case of Mumford v. Bowman, 26 Annual Eeport, 413, which ■was a case brought to make an heir liable on the ground of accept- -ance, as the party had proclaimed herself heir, and it was daimed, besides, that she had taken possession of succession effects, the court -says: �"But, if she had taken possession, it may well be questioned whether the formai inventory of the succession made under judicial authority would uot protect her from liability beyond its assets according to article (1006) 1013, Rev. Civil Code." �In the case under consideration none of the rights of the com- -plainant have been affected or even jeopardized by the failure to take the formai inventory, and in equity I do not think the court should make them liable for a technical omission, injuring nobody, particu- larly in the light of the dictum in Mumford v. Bowman, quoted above. ��� �