Vincent v. Schweitzer
Supreme Court of Louisiana
ÍX PPEAL from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Sandlin, J. 1. The amount in dispute is tested by the sum claimed in the petition. McKee v. Filis, 2 An. 163; Succession of Stafford, 12 Rob. 178; Gerber v. Marsoni, 3 Rob. 370. 2. The plaintiff cannot give jurisdiction by fictitious claims, even when embodied in his petition.
Read the full summary
ÍX PPEAL from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Sandlin, J. 1. The amount in dispute is tested by the sum claimed in the petition. McKee v. Filis, 2 An. 163; Succession of Stafford, 12 Rob. 178; Gerber v. Marsoni, 3 Rob. 370. 2. The plaintiff cannot give jurisdiction by fictitious claims, even when embodied in his petition. Babbs v. Stevens, 3 Rob. 143; Red River R. R. Co. v. Williams, 16 La. 183; Orillon v. Slack, 17 La. 103, 104; and she cannot consequently take off said jurisdiction by fictitious reductions. 3. The claim of plaintiff and the contingent counter-claim of defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
Lüsley, J.
The demand of the plaintiff against the defendant was originally stated to be over three hundred dollars, but was afterwards admitted by the plaintiff, in the record, to be for a sum less than three hundred dollars. The amount in dispute is, consequently, too small to give this court jurisdiction of the present appeal, which is not, therefore, judicially before us. See State Constitution of 1864, tit. 5 Art. 70; Act of Leg. 1864, No. 11, p. 18.
There is, however, in the same record, a reconventional demand set up by John Schweitzer v. Widow Vincent, for the sum of four hundred and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gove v. KendigSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1843
- Hanna v. BartletteSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1845
- Ex Parte GoodwinSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1845
3Cited by1 opinion
- Thompson v. McCauslandSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1915