Levy v. Lazarus

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Levy v. Lazarus

9 Teiss. 37, 1911 La. App. LEXIS 128

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 6, 1911

Docket5339

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Teiss. 37 (Levy v. Lazarus) 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

Levy v. Lazarus, 9 Teiss. 37, 1911 La. App. LEXIS 128 (La. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

GODCHATJX, J.

Sued for an alleged balance due of [38]*38$106.-76 upon a contract, the defendant answered admitting the debt, but set up in his answer by way of reconvention a claim for $55.00 for damages that he avers he -suffered through plaintiff’s negligent performance of tbe contract sued upon.- He further alleges that the difference between the amount of the main demand and that 'of -his reconventional demand, namely, the sum of $51.76’, was tendered to plaintiff and he prayfed that the amount thus .tendered be’ made the judgment ’ of the Court.'

November 6th, 1911.

From this statement it is clear that the controversy is one not within the jurisdiction of this Court. And it is useless to decide whether this jurisdiction shall be governed by the main demand or by the reconventional demand, for by the effect of the admission in defendant’s answer there remains no amount in dispute upon the main demand, while the reconventional demand involves a sum below the minimum jurisdictional limit of the Court.

Borde vs. Lazarus, Michel & Lazarus, 7 Court of Appeal, 237; 127 La., 122.

It is accordingly ordered that the appeal in this case be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

GODCHATJX, J.

Sued for an alleged balance due of [38]*38$106.-76 upon a contract, the defendant answered admitting the debt, but set up in his answer by way of reconvention a claim for $55.00 for damages that he avers he -suffered through plaintiff’s negligent performance of tbe contract sued upon.- He further alleges that the difference between the amount of the main demand and that 'of -his reconventional demand, namely, the sum of $51.76’, was tendered to plaintiff and he prayfed that the amount thus .tendered be’ made the judgment ’ of the Court.'

November 6th, 1911.

From this statement it is clear that the controversy is one not within the jurisdiction of this Court. And it is useless to decide whether this jurisdiction shall be governed by the main demand or by the reconventional demand, for by the effect of the admission in defendant’s answer there remains no amount in dispute upon the main demand, while the reconventional demand involves a sum below the minimum jurisdictional limit of the Court.

Borde vs. Lazarus, Michel & Lazarus, 7 Court of Appeal, 237; 127 La., 122.

It is accordingly ordered that the appeal in this case be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Teiss. 37, 1911 La. App. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-lazarus-lactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack