Armitage v. Barrow

10 La. Ann. 78
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 15, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 La. Ann. 78 (Armitage v. Barrow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Armitage v. Barrow, 10 La. Ann. 78 (La. 1855).

Opinion

Voorhies, J.

The defendant is surety on the bond given by Claiborne Blake, as curator of the succession of the late William Avent. The curator filed a tableau of distribution, which was homologated on the 13th of August, 1846 ; Charles Armitage was classed thereon as an ordinary creditor for a [79]*79dividend of $286 62. After having unavailingly sought, by an execution against the curator, to enforce the payment of this dividend, Armitage instituted this suit to recover the amount thereof, from the defendant, as surety on the curator’s bond. In his petition, filed on the 21st of February, 1854, he only claims the amount of the dividend with legal interest thereon from the 4th of May, 1850.

St. John, Gregory & Go., were also classed on the tableau of distribution, as ordinary creditors, for a dividend of $72 90. It appears that the same proceedings were had on their claim as on that of Armitage. The two actions were not cumulated in the same demand, but were tried together.

The inferior court rendered separate judgments in favor of each of the plaintiffs, for the sums respectively claimed by them, with legal interest from judicial demand. From which judgments the defendant has appealed.

The plaintiffs claim that the appeals be dismissed on the ground, that the amount involved in dispute in each of the cases, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.

The objection, it appears to us, is fatal. It is perfectly clear that both actions are separate and distinct, as well as the judgments therein rendered; consequently the separate, and not the collective, amounts claimed in each of them, must determine the question of our jurisdiction. See 5 N. S. 87, and 8 Ibid, 285.

It is therefore ordered and decreed, that said appeals be dismissed at the appellants’ costs respectively.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fried v. New York Life Ins. Co.
148 So. 5 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1933)
State v. Sanders
106 So. 455 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 La. Ann. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armitage-v-barrow-la-1855.