Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v. Lynch
Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v. Lynch, 101 So. 797 (La. 1924).
Cited by
- Barber v. Hardwick 107 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
- Griffin v. Bank of Abbeville & Trust Co. 69 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
- Kennedy v. Perry Timber Co. 46 So. 2d 312 La. 1950
- State v. Cook 3 So. 2d 114 La. 1941
- Rockefeller v. Eggleston 177 So. 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- Shreveport Laundries, Inc. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. of St. Paul 169 So. 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Carlock v. Kusin 167 So. 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Southern Amusement Co. 146 So. 316 La. 1933
- Chickasaw Wood Products Co. v. Vail-Donaldson Co. 136 So. 87 La. 1931
- Givens v. Yazoo M.V.R. Co. 137 So. 66 La. 1931
- Steeg Printing & Publishing Co. v. Auto Lec Stores, Inc. 134 So. 746 La. 1931
- City of New Orleans, by Public Belt Railroad Commission, v. New Orleans Coal & … 123 So. 724 La. 1929
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Wolf v. Thomas 137 La. 833
- Tremont Lumber Co. v. Talbot 140 La. 887
- 144 La. 130 not in our corpus
- Kennon v. Hilburn 80 So. 224
- Norwood v. Lake Bisteneau Oil Co. 145 La. 823
Opinion text
O’NIELL, C. J. This suit was brought as a petitory action to recover 80 acres of land, alleged to be worth $4,000. One of the defendants, 1-Iamp Lynch, occupied 40 acres of the land, and the other defendant, Jesse Eunderburk, had the other 40 acres. He allowed judgment to go against him by default and has not appealed. Lynch, in his answer to the suit, acknowledged plaintiff’s ownership of the land, but averred that he, Lynch, as a possessor in good faith, had improved the property to the extent of $1,000, for which he claimed reimbursement. That was the only matter at issue — whether the defendant should be reimbursed $1,000 for the improvements he had put upon the land, or should ,be merely allowed to remove the buildings. The district court decided that Lynch had only the right to remove his buildings. At the same time, of course, the court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the land itself. The defendant Lynch appealed from the judgment. Plaintiff has moved to dismiss the appeal because the *23 amount in contest is below the jurisdiction of this court. The test of jurisdiction of an appellate court, so far as it is determined by the amount or value in contest, is not the amount or' value sued for, but the amount or value remaining in contest when the case has been submitted for decision in the court of original jurisdiction. Wolf v. Thomas, 137 La. 833 , 69 So. 269 ; Tremont Lumber Co. v. Talbot, 140 La. 887 , 74 So. 183 ; Crawford, Jenkins & Booth v. Fisher, 144 La. 130 , 80 So. 224 ; Norwood v. Lake Bisteneau Oil Co., 145 La. 823 , 83 So. 25 . The amount or value that remained in contest when this case was submitted for decision in the district court was only $1,000, -which is under the minimum limit of our jurisdiction. The appeal, however, should be not dismissed, but be transferred to the Court of Appeal, which has jurisdiction of the case. It is ordered that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Appellant is to pay the costs of the present appeal; all other court costs are to abide the final judgment.