In re the Pelican Saw Mill & Manufacturing Co.
This text of 23 So. 363 (In re the Pelican Saw Mill & Manufacturing Co.) 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.
Opinions
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The motion to dismiss is made on the ground that the amount claimed by each appellant is below the' appealable jurisdiction of this court.
The provisional account of the receiver proposing to distribute fifteen thousand five hundred and thirty-three dollars and seventy-six cents, and his final account proposing to distribute four thousand one hundred and eighty-nine dollars and seventy-five cents additional, or a total of nineteen thousand seven hundred and twenty-three dollars and fifty-one cents, were tried together, amended and homologated under one judgment.
Representing themselves as creditors of the insolvent concern and averring error in the judgment and injury to themselves, A. M. Edwards, John Stranger and Henry Buddig prosecute this appeal.
It is not the amount of their claim that determines the appellate jurisdiction; it is that of the fund to be distributed. Constitution, Art. 81; Murray vs. Sweeney, 48 La. An. 761; Amendment, Acts 1882, p. 174.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 So. 363, 50 La. Ann. 404, 1898 La. LEXIS 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-pelican-saw-mill-manufacturing-co-la-1898.