Flanagan v. Land Development Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Flanagan v. Land Development Co.

6 Pelt. 115

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 1, 1923

DocketNO. 8464

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Pelt. 115 (Flanagan v. Land Development 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

Flanagan v. Land Development Co., 6 Pelt. 115 (La. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Dinkelspiel; J.

A motion to dismiss the appeal is filed in this case and the various grounds set up were discussed and decided by this Court in No. 8282, and we refer to that case in order to properly decide the present motion.

Mover oontends mainly that "if an appeal shall lie, the appeal should be taken to the Court whose judgment is sought to be executed."

And "that the matters and things nsniampiadMi complained of grow out of a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Louisiana and relate to the execution thereof, in which no appeal lies."

After an examination of the voluminous reoords presented by motions to dismiss, in this oase, we oonolude that this Court has no jurisdiction over an appeal that involves the execution of a judgment of the Supreme Court; but that qualified by the fact that no inferior Court can prevent or hinder the execution of a judgment of the Supreme Court, nevertheless it is quite a different thing when the question presented is not, whether the judgment of the Supreme Court shall or shall not be executed, but whether the method of execution aotively pursued is appropriate to the particular judgment, whether rendered by the Supreme Court or by any other Court.

In other words, whether a Fi Fa is an appropriate method of executing a money judgment against a succession or an Insolvent, and that is the question presented here, wherein the jurisdiction, original or appellate, Is governed by the amount and matter of the controversy.

The amount involved in this controversy being within the jurisdiction of this Court, we hold that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter.

[117]*117All the other matters presented in referenoe to whether Division "A" or Division "E" has jurisdiction in this matter, has been determined and settled/this Court in No. 8383 and requires no further argument in support of the Judgment there pronounced.

For the reasons assigned, motion to dismiss denied.

-Motion to dismiss denied-

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

Dinkelspiel; J.

A motion to dismiss the appeal is filed in this case and the various grounds set up were discussed and decided by this Court in No. 8282, and we refer to that case in order to properly decide the present motion.

Mover oontends mainly that "if an appeal shall lie, the appeal should be taken to the Court whose judgment is sought to be executed."

And "that the matters and things nsniampiadMi complained of grow out of a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Louisiana and relate to the execution thereof, in which no appeal lies."

After an examination of the voluminous reoords presented by motions to dismiss, in this oase, we oonolude that this Court has no jurisdiction over an appeal that involves the execution of a judgment of the Supreme Court; but that qualified by the fact that no inferior Court can prevent or hinder the execution of a judgment of the Supreme Court, nevertheless it is quite a different thing when the question presented is not, whether the judgment of the Supreme Court shall or shall not be executed, but whether the method of execution aotively pursued is appropriate to the particular judgment, whether rendered by the Supreme Court or by any other Court.

In other words, whether a Fi Fa is an appropriate method of executing a money judgment against a succession or an Insolvent, and that is the question presented here, wherein the jurisdiction, original or appellate, Is governed by the amount and matter of the controversy.

The amount involved in this controversy being within the jurisdiction of this Court, we hold that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter.

[117]*117All the other matters presented in referenoe to whether Division "A" or Division "E" has jurisdiction in this matter, has been determined and settled/this Court in No. 8383 and requires no further argument in support of the Judgment there pronounced.

For the reasons assigned, motion to dismiss denied.

-Motion to dismiss denied-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Pelt. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flanagan-v-land-development-co-lactapp-1923.