State ex rel. Allnet v. Board of Health

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Allnet v. Board of Health

99 So. 589, 155 La. 758, 1924 La. LEXIS 1870

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 10, 1924

DocketNo. 25813

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 99 So. 589 (State ex rel. Allnet v. Board of Health) 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

State ex rel. Allnet v. Board of Health, 99 So. 589, 155 La. 758, 1924 La. LEXIS 1870 (La. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

LECHE, J.

Relators in this proceeding seek to compel by mandamus the city board of health of the city of New Orleans to change certain designations in its records of vital statistics, from “colored” to “white,” of their ancestors .and other blood relatives. The [760]*760trial court refused to grant their demand, and relators have appealed to this court.'

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the matter at issue is not within our appellate jurisdiction.

Section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court “Shall have appellate jurisdiction in' civil suits where the ‘amount in dispute, or the fund to be distributed, irrespective of the amount therein claimed, shall exceed two thousand dollars exclusive of interest.' * * * ” No money or property is involved in this case. The right which relators seek to vindicate herein is political or civil, and to say that because it is of vital importance to them, and therefore worth more than $2,000, and for that reason, to hold that it comes within the jurisdiction of this court would be to establish a basis of jurisdiction not contemplated by the Constitution. If the value of such a right were intended as constituting a basis of jurisdiction, there would then have been no necessity of expressly mentioning cases involving civil or political rights, in section 35 of the same article, as coming within the jurisdiction of the distinct court, because jurisdiction would attach as a result of conferring jurisdiction upon that court in all civil matters regardless of the amount in dispute, or the fund to be distributed.

This question has already been passed upon and decided adversely to the contention of appellants in the cases of Thurber v. Board of Health, 153 La. 986, 96 South. 833; Oberly v. Calcasieu, 142 La. 788, 77 South. 600; and Billiot v. Terrebonne, 143 La. 623, 79 South. 78.

For these reasons, the present appeal is dismissed at the cost of appellants, and it is ordered that this cause be transferred to the Court of Appeal for the parish of Orleans, upon appellant’s filing the . record in said court, as required by law, within 15 days from and after the finality of this decree.

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

LECHE, J.

Relators in this proceeding seek to compel by mandamus the city board of health of the city of New Orleans to change certain designations in its records of vital statistics, from “colored” to “white,” of their ancestors .and other blood relatives. The [760]*760trial court refused to grant their demand, and relators have appealed to this court.'

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the matter at issue is not within our appellate jurisdiction.

Section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court “Shall have appellate jurisdiction in' civil suits where the ‘amount in dispute, or the fund to be distributed, irrespective of the amount therein claimed, shall exceed two thousand dollars exclusive of interest.' * * * ” No money or property is involved in this case. The right which relators seek to vindicate herein is political or civil, and to say that because it is of vital importance to them, and therefore worth more than $2,000, and for that reason, to hold that it comes within the jurisdiction of this court would be to establish a basis of jurisdiction not contemplated by the Constitution. If the value of such a right were intended as constituting a basis of jurisdiction, there would then have been no necessity of expressly mentioning cases involving civil or political rights, in section 35 of the same article, as coming within the jurisdiction of the distinct court, because jurisdiction would attach as a result of conferring jurisdiction upon that court in all civil matters regardless of the amount in dispute, or the fund to be distributed.

This question has already been passed upon and decided adversely to the contention of appellants in the cases of Thurber v. Board of Health, 153 La. 986, 96 South. 833; Oberly v. Calcasieu, 142 La. 788, 77 South. 600; and Billiot v. Terrebonne, 143 La. 623, 79 South. 78.

For these reasons, the present appeal is dismissed at the cost of appellants, and it is ordered that this cause be transferred to the Court of Appeal for the parish of Orleans, upon appellant’s filing the . record in said court, as required by law, within 15 days from and after the finality of this decree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 589, 155 La. 758, 1924 La. LEXIS 1870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-allnet-v-board-of-health-la-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack