H. G. Hill Stores Realty Co. v. Latter

Supreme Court of Louisiana

H. G. Hill Stores Realty Co. v. Latter

80 So. 2d 410, 227 La. 791, 1955 La. LEXIS 1295

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 25, 1955

DocketNo. 41811

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 80 So. 2d 410 (H. G. Hill Stores Realty Co. v. Latter) 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

H. G. Hill Stores Realty Co. v. Latter, 80 So. 2d 410, 227 La. 791, 1955 La. LEXIS 1295 (La. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMITER, Justice.

Invoking and claiming benefits under a restrictive use covenant contained in the title to certain real estate situated in the City of New Orleans which defendants possess, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief herein for the protection of their property rights allegedly affected. The district court granted a writ of injunction, after trial of the merits, and defendants are appealing.

Since the record contains no proof, and it does not otherwise affirmatively disclose, that the property rights sought to be protected are valued in excess of $2,000 (our jurisdictional minimum), we cannot entertain the appeal.

[794]*794True, the petition does allege that the “property rights herein involved are far in excess of $5,000 and that the continued violation of the said restrictions and covenants as hereinabove set out will cause to your petitioners and to each of them irreparable damage and injury far in excess of $5,000 * * Also, a stipulation of counsel, entered at the commencement of the trial, recites that “plaintiffs’ property rights are in excess of $5,000.” However, the allegations of the petition were categorically denied in the answer; and the mentioned stipulation is without effect, consent of the parties being inappropriate and insufficient for conferring appellate jurisdiction. Supporting such conclusion are many recent decisions of this court. See Castleberry v. Ethridge, 223 La. 466, 65 So.2d 138; Wainer v. Kirn, 223 La. 669, 66 So.2d 587 (and cases therein cited); State ex rel. Schwehm v. Morrison, 224 La. 811, 70 So.2d 881.

Therefore, it is ordered that this cause be transferred to the Court of Appeal, Orleans Circuit, pursuant to the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:4441 and 4442, the record to be filed in such court by appellants within thirty days from the date on which this decree shall become final; otherwise the appeal shall stand dismissed. Appellants shall pay the costs of the appeal to this court, and all other costs shall await final disposition of the case. .

HAWTHORNE, J., absent.

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

HAMITER, Justice.

Invoking and claiming benefits under a restrictive use covenant contained in the title to certain real estate situated in the City of New Orleans which defendants possess, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief herein for the protection of their property rights allegedly affected. The district court granted a writ of injunction, after trial of the merits, and defendants are appealing.

Since the record contains no proof, and it does not otherwise affirmatively disclose, that the property rights sought to be protected are valued in excess of $2,000 (our jurisdictional minimum), we cannot entertain the appeal.

[794]*794True, the petition does allege that the “property rights herein involved are far in excess of $5,000 and that the continued violation of the said restrictions and covenants as hereinabove set out will cause to your petitioners and to each of them irreparable damage and injury far in excess of $5,000 * * Also, a stipulation of counsel, entered at the commencement of the trial, recites that “plaintiffs’ property rights are in excess of $5,000.” However, the allegations of the petition were categorically denied in the answer; and the mentioned stipulation is without effect, consent of the parties being inappropriate and insufficient for conferring appellate jurisdiction. Supporting such conclusion are many recent decisions of this court. See Castleberry v. Ethridge, 223 La. 466, 65 So.2d 138; Wainer v. Kirn, 223 La. 669, 66 So.2d 587 (and cases therein cited); State ex rel. Schwehm v. Morrison, 224 La. 811, 70 So.2d 881.

Therefore, it is ordered that this cause be transferred to the Court of Appeal, Orleans Circuit, pursuant to the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:4441 and 4442, the record to be filed in such court by appellants within thirty days from the date on which this decree shall become final; otherwise the appeal shall stand dismissed. Appellants shall pay the costs of the appeal to this court, and all other costs shall await final disposition of the case. .

HAWTHORNE, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 So. 2d 410, 227 La. 791, 1955 La. LEXIS 1295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-g-hill-stores-realty-co-v-latter-la-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack