Quaglino v. Curren

53 So. 464, 127 La. 126, 1910 La. LEXIS 777
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedOctober 31, 1910
DocketNo. 18,324
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 53 So. 464 (Quaglino v. Curren) 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
Quaglino v. Curren, 53 So. 464, 127 La. 126, 1910 La. LEXIS 777 (La. 1910).

Opinion

BREAUX, C. J.

Plaintiff brought this suit to recover a strip of land from defendant.

A witness, as to value, testified that the lot in question was worth $17 a front foot.

It measures 10 feet front.

At another time, this witness testified that it is worth -about $140; i. e., the whole lot.

In addition, plaintiff claims as follows:

First. Fee of attorney, $200.

Second.- Deprivation of use and enjoyment and diminution of value to petitioner’s property, $1,000.

Third. Punitive damages, $300.,

Fourth. Exemplary, damages, $500.

Total. $2,200.

[128]*128The fee of plaintiff’s attorney, in a petitory action, in a ease such as this, is not a serious claim.

Punitive and exemplary damages are not to be considered at all in an action of this kind.

The petition of plaintiff is not in the least suggestive of ahy right to such damages. There is no trespass alleged. It is at most an ordinary claim to recover immovable property worth about $170.

It is difficult to imagine that land of that value can give rise to the damages claimed. It is very evident that these amounts are exaggerated and inflated — represent no value.

As relates to the $1,000 claimed: If it were considered sufficient as a jurisdictional allegation, the amount in controversy would still he less than $2,000.

Clearly this court has no jurisdiction ratione materise.

The appeal must be dismissed.

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal is dismissed.

It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the case be transferred to the Court of Appeal, sitting in the city of New Orleans, provided that the required affidavit by appellant be filed within 10 days, showing that the appeal was not taken for delay, and provided, further, that the law be complied with in the matter of transfer.

Appellant to pay costs of this court.

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

Related

Breaux v. Simon
104 So. 2d 168 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1958)
Levy v. Andress-Hanna, Inc.
94 So. 2d 668 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1957)
Harris v. Barron
93 So. 2d 663 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1957)
Des Ormeaux v. Dufour
85 So. 2d 518 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1956)
Jackson v. Perkins
59 So. 2d 708 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1952)
Nash v. Curette
51 So. 2d 71 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1951)
Rogers v. National Calendar & Advertising Novelty Co.
56 So. 421 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1911)
Hood v. Hood
55 So. 335 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1911)
Riley v. Heuer
53 So. 463 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 So. 464, 127 La. 126, 1910 La. LEXIS 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quaglino-v-curren-la-1910.