Brewer v. New Orleans Land Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Brewer v. New Orleans Land Co.

5 Pelt. 255

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 2, 1922

DocketNO. 8166

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Pelt. 255 (Brewer v. New Orleans Land Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brewer v. New Orleans Land Co., 5 Pelt. 255 (La. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

[256]*256OEXHIOB.

By Mb

Honor John 3t. Eaul.

After examining the record we have no douht whatever as to our having jurisdiction; and accordingly wo must decline to certify that question to the Supreme Court.

I.

The case la simply this; Throe a. -oral plaintiffs entered into what they tena a joint agreement, hut whftoh the documenta annexed to the petition (and others on fils) show to have been three several agreements, hy which defendant sold to said plaintiffs severally three several portions of land; each paying severally the prioe of his own portion. To whioh portions of land (it is alleged) defendant had no title; whereupon the three purchasers, instead of filing three seperata suits (as they had the right to do) filed one joint suit, each claiming the return of the price paid hy himself; towit, each claiming less than $2000, hut the aggregate of their claims exceeding that sum.

II.

Consent oannot give jurisdiction rations materias; henos, several plaintiffs, each with a olaim helow the jurisdiction of a court, hut hr ring no necessary oonneetion [257]*257with sack otilar and no common causo of action, cannot by joining thair demands create a caso within that jurisdiction; nor can one plaintiff do so, by joining in one action separata claims, each below the jurisdiction of the court but against several def .'.sdants without necessary connection between them.

Boulden vs Hughes, 8 Martin N. S. 285.

State vs Judge, 105 La 333

Tague vs Insurance Companies, 38 An 456

The fact is that plaintiffs have, in effect, simply consolidated (by suing jointly) three suits whioh might, or even should, have been filed separately. And, "The consolidation of suits, aaoh of which is below the minimum amount for appeal, does not confer appellate jurisdiction, oven though the aggregate of the demands exceeds the amount necessary for appeal." See la. Digest, Vol 1 p. 286 (verbo, Appeal; Section 58), and authorities there cited.

A certificate is therefore denied.

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

[256]*256OEXHIOB.

By Mb

Honor John 3t. Eaul.

After examining the record we have no douht whatever as to our having jurisdiction; and accordingly wo must decline to certify that question to the Supreme Court.

I.

The case la simply this; Throe a. -oral plaintiffs entered into what they tena a joint agreement, hut whftoh the documenta annexed to the petition (and others on fils) show to have been three several agreements, hy which defendant sold to said plaintiffs severally three several portions of land; each paying severally the prioe of his own portion. To whioh portions of land (it is alleged) defendant had no title; whereupon the three purchasers, instead of filing three seperata suits (as they had the right to do) filed one joint suit, each claiming the return of the price paid hy himself; towit, each claiming less than $2000, hut the aggregate of their claims exceeding that sum.

II.

Consent oannot give jurisdiction rations materias; henos, several plaintiffs, each with a olaim helow the jurisdiction of a court, hut hr ring no necessary oonneetion [257]*257with sack otilar and no common causo of action, cannot by joining thair demands create a caso within that jurisdiction; nor can one plaintiff do so, by joining in one action separata claims, each below the jurisdiction of the court but against several def .'.sdants without necessary connection between them.

Boulden vs Hughes, 8 Martin N. S. 285.

State vs Judge, 105 La 333

Tague vs Insurance Companies, 38 An 456

The fact is that plaintiffs have, in effect, simply consolidated (by suing jointly) three suits whioh might, or even should, have been filed separately. And, "The consolidation of suits, aaoh of which is below the minimum amount for appeal, does not confer appellate jurisdiction, oven though the aggregate of the demands exceeds the amount necessary for appeal." See la. Digest, Vol 1 p. 286 (verbo, Appeal; Section 58), and authorities there cited.

A certificate is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Pelt. 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewer-v-new-orleans-land-co-lactapp-1922.