State ex rel. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Judge of the Seventh District Court for the Parish of Orleans

21 La. Ann. 728
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedNovember 15, 1869
DocketNo. 2291
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 21 La. Ann. 728 (State ex rel. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Judge of the Seventh District Court for the Parish of Orleans) 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. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Judge of the Seventh District Court for the Parish of Orleans, 21 La. Ann. 728 (La. 1869).

Opinion

Howell, J.

This is an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the Judge of the Seventh District Court for the parish of Orleans to grant the relator a suspensive appeal from a judgment rendered in the suit of C. Seiler & Co. v. The Western Union Telegraph Company, which appeal the Judge, in his answer, says was .refused because the amount in dispute does not exceed five hundred dollars.

[729]*729Tiie demand was for twelve hundred and sixty-four dollars and twenty cents, but on the day following the trial and before judgment was rendered, the plaintiffs entered a remittitur of several items amounting to seven hundred and sixty-five dollars and twenty cents, and asked for judgment for the sum of four hundred and ninety-nine dollars, with costs. A week afterwards they were permitted to correct the remittitur in the form in which it was stated, but the sum demanded was not changed.

By this act plaintiffs’ demand was reduced to four hundred and ninety-nine dollars, no interest being asked for on said sum, and, as held in the case of Wolf v. Munzenheimer (14 An. 114), where the plaintiff before judgment enters a remittitur, by the effect of which the amount in contestation does not come within the jurisdiction of this Court, no. appeal will lie.

The amount necessary to the jurisdiction of the appellate Court is the sum in controversy at the time of the judgment. 2 How. 73.

The right of the plaintiffs to remit or discontinue the whole or a, parfof their claim, cannot well be denied, and after the remission was made by them, the Court could not render a judgment for more than four, hundred and ninety-nine dollars, which was all that was demanded, was the matter then in dispute, and is loss than the jurisdiction of this Court. 7 N. S. 361; 2 L. 102, 236 ; 2 A. 136; 14 A. 643; 16 A. 431; C. P. 491.

It is, therefore, ordered, that the application for a writ of mandamus be refused, at the costs of the petitioner.

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

Related

Hunter v. Hussey
85 So. 2d 246 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1956)
Griffin v. Bank of Abbeville & Trust Co.
69 So. 2d 153 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1953)
Jackson v. Perkins
59 So. 2d 708 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1952)
State v. Cook
3 So. 2d 114 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1941)
Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Southern Amusement Co.
146 So. 316 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1933)
Chickasaw Wood Products Co. v. Vail-Donaldson Co.
136 So. 87 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1931)
Givens v. Yazoo M.V.R. Co.
137 So. 66 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1931)
Steeg Printing & Publishing Co. v. Auto Lec Stores, Inc.
134 So. 746 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1931)
Roden v. Aldy
121 So. 656 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1928)
Thompson v. McCausland
68 So. 196 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1915)
Central Glass Co. v. Niagara Fire Insurance
57 So. 895 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1912)
Borde v. Lazarus
53 So. 465 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1910)
Trenchard v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.
48 So. 575 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 La. Ann. 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-western-union-telegraph-co-v-judge-of-the-seventh-district-la-1869.