Glassell-Hicks Co. v. Smith

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Glassell-Hicks Co. v. Smith

186 So. 859

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 6, 1939

DocketNo. 5758.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 So. 859 (Glassell-Hicks Co. v. Smith) 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

Glassell-Hicks Co. v. Smith, 186 So. 859 (La. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMITER, Judge.

A judgment against defendant for the sum of $109.33 is asked by plaintiff in this suit. Of the mentioned amount $95 is alleged to be for money advances made, while the balance, or $14.33, is claimed as interest that has accrued on the funds loaned.

There was judgment in the trial court in favor of plaintiff for $95. The interest item was rejected. Defendant appealed.

This court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. The case is of a civil nature and is one of which the district court had concurrent jurisdiction; and when the aforementioned interest charge is excluded or eliminated from the amount demanded by plaintiff, as must be done for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, the sum remaining is below our authorized jurisdictional limits. Article 7, section 29 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921; Todd v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corp., 7 La.App. 120.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

HAMITER, Judge.

A judgment against defendant for the sum of $109.33 is asked by plaintiff in this suit. Of the mentioned amount $95 is alleged to be for money advances made, while the balance, or $14.33, is claimed as interest that has accrued on the funds loaned.

There was judgment in the trial court in favor of plaintiff for $95. The interest item was rejected. Defendant appealed.

This court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. The case is of a civil nature and is one of which the district court had concurrent jurisdiction; and when the aforementioned interest charge is excluded or eliminated from the amount demanded by plaintiff, as must be done for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, the sum remaining is below our authorized jurisdictional limits. Article 7, section 29 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921; Todd v. Shreveport Producing & Refining Corp., 7 La.App. 120.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 So. 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glassell-hicks-co-v-smith-lactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack