Mayor v. Maignan

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Mayor v. Maignan

8 Mart. (N.S.) 122

DecidedMay 15, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Mart. (N.S.) 122 (Mayor v. Maignan) 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

Mayor v. Maignan, 8 Mart. (N.S.) 122 (La. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

Porter, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant applies for a mandamus, to the judge of the parish, to grant him an appeal from a judgment rendered against him, in the parish court, at the suit of the plaintiffs.

The affidavit, on which this application is made, states the amount claimed, and decreed by the court below to be paid, was forty-nine dollars seventy-three cents, and of such a sum the court has not jurisdiction. He contends indeed it makes a part of a larger sum, which the plaintiffs will continue to demand of him; but, admitting this to be true, the court cannot take cognizance of the case; for, the matter in dispute here, is below that which the constitution authorizes us to examine.

We cannot distinguish the application from that of Millaudon vs. the judge of the parish of Jefferson, where a similar demand was refused. 6 Martin, n. s. 24.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the rule be discharged.

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

Porter, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant applies for a mandamus, to the judge of the parish, to grant him an appeal from a judgment rendered against him, in the parish court, at the suit of the plaintiffs.

The affidavit, on which this application is made, states the amount claimed, and decreed by the court below to be paid, was forty-nine dollars seventy-three cents, and of such a sum the court has not jurisdiction. He contends indeed it makes a part of a larger sum, which the plaintiffs will continue to demand of him; but, admitting this to be true, the court cannot take cognizance of the case; for, the matter in dispute here, is below that which the constitution authorizes us to examine.

We cannot distinguish the application from that of Millaudon vs. the judge of the parish of Jefferson, where a similar demand was refused. 6 Martin, n. s. 24.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the rule be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Mart. (N.S.) 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayor-v-maignan-la-1829.