## Facts

- Spouses J. E. Leury and Hannah Leury owned 20 shares of bank stock as community property.
- After Hannah died, her one-half community interest passed to the couple’s only child, Louis F. Leury, as naked owner, subject to J. E.’s usufruct for life.
- J. E. later sold all 20 shares to Mayer, purporting to transfer full ownership of the entire block.
- J. E. had not been legally qualified as tutor (guardian) for Louis while Louis was a minor.
- After J. E.’s death, Louis sued Mayer seeking recognition of his one-half ownership interest and partition of the shares and related dividends.
- The trial court recognized Louis’s one-half interest and ordered sale and partition of the stock and accrued dividends equally between Louis and Mayer.

## Issues

1. Whether bank stock held in usufruct is consumable property allowing the usufructuary to dispose of the corpus, or nonconsumable property limiting the usufructuary to receiving fruits (dividends).
2. Whether the father’s sale of all shares could divest the child’s vested naked ownership in the decedent mother’s half, particularly where the father lacked legal tutorship.
3. Whether partition and equal division of the stock (and accrued dividends) between the child and the purchaser was an appropriate remedy after termination of the usufruct.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Louis.
- The court held bank stock is not consumable under the Civil Code provisions invoked; it is an investment producing revenue, so the usufructuary is entitled only to fruits (e.g., dividends), not the principal.
- The court held J. E.’s sale could transfer only his own rights: his one-half ownership and his life usufruct over the other half; it could not alienate Louis’s naked ownership.
- Upon J. E.’s death, the usufruct terminated and Louis’s naked ownership became full ownership as to Hannah’s half; Mayer remained owner only of the other half.
- Partition, including accrued dividends, was proper on an equal (one-half each) basis.

## Legal Principles

- Bank stock is treated as nonconsumable, revenue-producing property for usufruct purposes; the usufructuary is limited to fruits and lacks authority to dispose of the corpus as owner.
- A usufructuary’s sale conveys only the seller’s transferable interests (ownership he personally holds and the usufruct for its duration) and does not extinguish the naked owner’s rights.
- A parent who has not been legally qualified as tutor lacks authority to alienate a minor child’s proprietary interest; a purchaser from the parent takes subject to the child’s title.
- When a usufruct tied to the usufructuary’s life ends, the naked owner’s rights mature into full ownership, supporting co-ownership remedies such as partition.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed recognition of the child’s one-half ownership in community bank stock, ruling that a surviving spouse’s usufruct in such stock confers only dividend rights and cannot be used—especially without legal tutorship—to sell away the child’s vested naked ownership; after the usufruct ended, equal partition with the purchaser was appropriate.


Leury v. Mayer, 47 So. 839 (La. 1908)