Durke v. Crane
Durke v. Crane, 36 So. 306 (La. 1904).
Cited by
- American Adjustment Co. v. Batiste 79 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
- Hydrotex Industries, Inc. v. Cartwright 45 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
- A. J. Hodges Industries v. Fobbs 39 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
- Amite Hardware Co. v. Pierce 8 La. App. 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
- Schaumburg v. Grishman 121 So. 760 La. 1925
- J. A. Coates & Son, Ltd. v. Lorio 8 Teiss. 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1911
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Demarest v. Beirne 36 La. Ann. 751
- State ex rel. Suberville v. Judges of the Court of Appeals 45 La. Ann. 1319
Opinion text
PROVOSTY, J. Plaintiff levied upon three horses. Defendant claimed two of the horses, without specifying which two, as exempt from seizure under the homestead law, and obtained judgment accordingly. Plaintiff acquiesced in the judgment; but difference arose as to which two of the horses defendant should have. To settle the matter, defendant took a rule, and from a judgment in his favor on this rule the present appeal is taken. Motion is made to dismiss on the ground that the matter is not a “suit involving a homestead exemption,” within the meaning of the Constitution conferring special jurisdiction upon this court in such eases. The judgment, in its effects, secures to the appellee the benefit of the homestead law. Therefore it “involves a homestead exemption.” Besides, it is merely interlocutory and incidental, interpreting and completing the main judgment, and, as such, follows its principal. Demarest v. Beirne, 36 La. Ann. 751 ; State ex rel. Suberville v. Judge, 45 La. Ann. 1319 , 14 South. 118 . The motion is overruled.