Denegre v. W. G. Tebault Furniture & Realty Co.
Denegre v. W. G. Tebault Furniture & Realty Co., 57 So. 929 (La. 1912).
Cited by
- Young v. Morvant 358 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
- Pryor v. Gions 188 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
- Willoz v. Veteranz Acceptance & Thrift, Inc. 188 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
- Hamilton v. City of Shreveport 180 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
- West Carroll Nat. Bank v. West Carroll Par. Sch. Bd. 136 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
- Scruggs v. Butler Furniture Co. 104 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
- Montegut v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry 68 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
- Jenkins v. Pemberton 65 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
- Jiles v. Venus Community Benev. Aid Ass'n 195 So. 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
- Calhoun v. Louisiana Delta Hardwood Lumber Co. 182 So. 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
- Horney v. Scott 171 So. 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Naef v. Miller-Goll Mfg. Co. 143 So. 61 La. 1932
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State ex rel. Jaubert Bros. v. Leche 113 La. 1
Opinion text
BREAUX, C. J. No jurisdiction ratione materise. Over $4,000 are claimed by plaintiff, secured by a lessor’s lien and privilege. The whole of defendant’s property was assessed at $12,500. I-Iis stock in trade was-sold for $1,298.15. This price is in the hands of the sheriff. This property was appraised at $10,000. The tax collector filed a motion, in which he claimed the taxes due to the state. The judge a quo rendered judgment, in which he made the motion absolute for the taxes to be paid on the $1,292.90. Whereupon counsel for the state tax collector petitioned this, court for a writ of certiorari. The issues are before us on the application for a writ of certiorari. The question to be decided is whether the amount of the taxes is due on $12,500 or on $1,292.90. The amount in the hands of the sheriff to be distributed is over $100. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction extends to all cases where the matter in dispute or the fund to be distributed exceeds $2,000 (whatever may be the amount therein claim *285 ed) are the words of the Constitution. (Italics ours.) The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction when the matter in dispute or the fund to be distributed shall exceed $100. Moreover, the amount claimed by the state is over $100, if we take into account the different amounts which make up the claim of the state, as shown by the testimony. [1] But to this we do not attach the least importance; for, even if the amount claimed is less than $100, the amount to be distributed is the test of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction. [2] This court has again and again decided that if the relator has a right of appeal certiorari and prohibition are not the remedies in the case. State ex rel. Jaubert Bros. v. Judge, 113 La. 1 , 36 South. 868 . The parties are left to their remedy before the tribunal having appellate jurisdiction. The writ nisi is recalled and discharged; relator’s demand is denied as in the ease of nonsuit, and its petition is dismissed.