Legal Opinion

Succession of Anderson

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided April 23, 1934No. 14686PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JANVIER, Judge.

This matter is before us on motion to dismiss the appeal ratione materia», or, in the alternative, to transfer it to the Supreme Court.

The contention of appellee divides itself into two parts: First, it is asserted that the appeal grows out of and is incidental to a main demand, which main demand is said to involve a sum in excess of $2,000 and that, •therefore, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the appeal because of the provision in section 1 of article 7 of the Constitution of 1921 to the effect that “in all cases where there is an appeal from a judgment on a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Norwood v. Lake Bisteneau Oil Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1918
  2. Wolf v. ThomasSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1915
  3. In re Petit & Boh Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1911
  4. Succession of TemplemanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1914

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mickenheim v. CathcartLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. Succession of SchneidauLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1934
  3. Jiles v. Venus Community Benev. Aid Ass'nLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1940
  4. Succession of HunzelmanLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. In Re Weinberger Banana Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1944

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API