Barthe v. Bernard
This text of 4 Rob. 377 (Barthe v. Bernard) 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.
Opinion
During March, 1841, Bernard, agent of Boismagny, obtained a rule on the Presiding Judge of the City Court, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to grant an appeal to the applicant, from a judgment obtained by Barthe, affirming eight judgments, rendered by an Associate Justice, against the applicant. The Judge having shown cause, the rule was discharged in April following. A few days after, we reconsidered our decision and made the rule absolute, but declared that we would listen to the appellee upon the question of the jurisdiction of this court, if he thought fit to urge a plea thereto. The Presiding Judge has granted the appeal, and the appellee has urged the plea to our jurisdiction. The plea must be sustained: 1st. On the ground, on which we discharged the rule, to wit, that appeals from the judgments of an Associate Justice, must terminate in the court of the Presiding Judge. 2d. That the eight judgments of sixty dollars each, not having been consolidated, there is not a judgment for four hundred and eighty dollars, as urged by the appellant, but eight several ones for a sum below that on which a resort for relief may be had to us.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Rob. 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barthe-v-bernard-la-1843.