State ex rel. Winter v. Judges of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Winter v. Judges of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

33 La. Ann. 1096

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 15, 1881

DocketNo. 1028

StatusPublished

This text of 33 La. Ann. 1096 (State ex rel. Winter v. Judges of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) 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. Winter v. Judges of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 33 La. Ann. 1096 (La. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Bermudez, C. J.

This is an application for a mandamus. The relators complain that the Court of Appeals for the Second District has, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, dismissed an appeal taken by them returnable to it.

The judgment appealed from, is one perpetuating an injunction obtained by a surety on a delivery bond for $1080, arresting executions issued on two judgments in favor of relators, aggregating $895, exclusive of interest, and subject to a ciedit of $105, and levied on the property of the surety on the bond, alleged to have been duly forfeited.

In the case of Isaac Lemle vs. J. P. Routon, Sheriff, et al., No. 998 of the docket of this Court, (33 An., p. _,) which is the suit referred to by the relators, we held that, as the matter in dispute therein, viz : the validity of the judgments on which the writs issued, did not exceed one thousand dollars in capital, the case did not come within our appellate jurisdiction, and was, therefore, within that of the Court of Appeals for the Second District.

Prom the return made to the petition, we understand that our judgment in that case is acquiesced in, and that no objection is urged against granting the relief sought. It is manifest that cases in which the amount claimed, or the matter in dispute, exceeds two hundred [1097]*1097dollars, but not one thousand dollars, are not within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, but fall within that of Courts of Appeals, and that where appeals in such cases are dismissed in this Court, they must be tried by the Court of Appeals, if brought up in time when returnable thereto. Relators are entitled to the remedy asked, and we can afford it. 32 An. 180; 14 L. 483.

It is, therefore, ordered and decreed that the alternative writ herein ' issued be made peremptory, and that, accordingly, the judges of the Court of Appeals for the Second District do reinstate the case mentioned in the petition on the docket of said Court, assume and exercise jurisdiction over the same, and. determine all the issues therein presented, in the manner and form provided by law.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Bermudez, C. J.

This is an application for a mandamus. The relators complain that the Court of Appeals for the Second District has, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, dismissed an appeal taken by them returnable to it.

The judgment appealed from, is one perpetuating an injunction obtained by a surety on a delivery bond for $1080, arresting executions issued on two judgments in favor of relators, aggregating $895, exclusive of interest, and subject to a ciedit of $105, and levied on the property of the surety on the bond, alleged to have been duly forfeited.

In the case of Isaac Lemle vs. J. P. Routon, Sheriff, et al., No. 998 of the docket of this Court, (33 An., p. _,) which is the suit referred to by the relators, we held that, as the matter in dispute therein, viz : the validity of the judgments on which the writs issued, did not exceed one thousand dollars in capital, the case did not come within our appellate jurisdiction, and was, therefore, within that of the Court of Appeals for the Second District.

Prom the return made to the petition, we understand that our judgment in that case is acquiesced in, and that no objection is urged against granting the relief sought. It is manifest that cases in which the amount claimed, or the matter in dispute, exceeds two hundred [1097]*1097dollars, but not one thousand dollars, are not within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, but fall within that of Courts of Appeals, and that where appeals in such cases are dismissed in this Court, they must be tried by the Court of Appeals, if brought up in time when returnable thereto. Relators are entitled to the remedy asked, and we can afford it. 32 An. 180; 14 L. 483.

It is, therefore, ordered and decreed that the alternative writ herein ' issued be made peremptory, and that, accordingly, the judges of the Court of Appeals for the Second District do reinstate the case mentioned in the petition on the docket of said Court, assume and exercise jurisdiction over the same, and. determine all the issues therein presented, in the manner and form provided by law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 La. Ann. 1096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-winter-v-judges-of-the-court-of-appeals-for-the-second-la-1881.