State ex rel. Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship v. Judges of Court of Appeals of Third Circuit
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., December 7, 1978 365 So. 2d 895; La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., November 22, 1961 135 So. 2d 507; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 17, 1973 289 So. 2d 334; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 19, 1925 1 La. App. 493
State ex rel. Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship v. Judges of Court of Appeals of Third Circuit, 37 La. Ann. 845 (1885).
Cited by
- State v. City of New Orleans 90 So. 196 La. 1921
- State ex rel. Le Blanc v. Twenty-First Judicial District Democratic Committee 47 So. 405 La. 1908
- Gleason v. Wisdom 45 So. 282 La. 1908
- State ex rel. Aucoin v. Board of Police Com'rs 37 So. 16 La. 1904
Opinion text
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Bermudez, C. J. This application for a Prohibition is based on the ground that the Circuit Court, to -which appeals have been taken in a number of cases decided in favor of the relating company, has no jurisdiction over them, the matter involved in each exceeding, it is alleged, two thousand dollars. The charge is that the Circuit Court “will, according to the mode of procedure which prevails therein, assimilate said motions to dismiss-with the trial of said suits on their merits, and unless restrained, will hear and decide them to relator’s great wrong and injury.” It does not appear that the motions to dismiss have been overruled, and that the court is about to proceed to try the merits of the cases. The complaint is, not that the Circuit Court has, notwithstanding" objection, maintained jurisdiction, hut that the court will hear and decide to relator’s great wrong and injury. *846 It is impossible to conceive bow, after tlie relating- company lias, by the motions to dismiss, invoked the powers of the Circuit Court, this ■Court can be appealed to, in order to prohibit the exercise of those powers. Non constat the Court of Appeals will not sustain those motions, if ■it. he true, as alleged, that the matter involved in each case exceeds two thousand dollars. Were the court, however, to overrule them illegally, the relators would be entitled to seek relief here against the effect of the ruling. It has been repeatedly held, that it is not until after a plea has been made to the jurisdiction of a lower court and overruled by it, that the interference of the Supreme Court can be claimed. There is no reason to depart from that wholesome rule of practice, which, well founded in law and reason, must continue to he enforced. The application is dismissed with costs.