No. 3393 Precedential Processed

Roden v. Aldy

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed December 19, 1928 · 121 So. 656

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 22, 1971 247 So. 2d 595; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., May 16, 1951 52 So. 2d 465

Cited by

Overruled in 1

McConnell v. Webb 55 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Birdow v. Midyett 9 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Shreveport Laundries, Inc. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. of St. Paul 169 So. 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Wolf v. Fred. Munzenheimer & Co. 14 La. Ann. 114
LeBlanc v. Pittman 16 La. Ann. 430
State ex rel. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Judge of the Seventh District Court for the … 21 La. Ann. 728
Trenchard v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. 123 La. 36

Opinion text

WEBB, J. Plaintiff, P. M. Roden, sued defendant, Joe Aldy, to recover judgment for' one hundred fifty dollars, alleged to have been due for a broker’s commission on the sale of certain real estate, and defendant appeals from a judgment rendered against him for one hundred dollars, with interest and costs. Plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this Court.. is without jurisdiction, as the record shows that after the cause had been tried and submitted to the Court, and a decree rendered in favor of plaintiff for one hundred dollars, that pending the drafting and signing of the judgment, plaintiff filed a remittitur, reducing the amount of his claim to one hundred dollars. ON MOTION TO DISMISS . It is conceded that the remittitur could not have rendered the cause unappealable if it had heen filed subsequent to the 'signing of the judgment (Wolf vs. Munzenheimer, 14 La. Ann. 114 ; LeBlanc vs. Pittman, 16 La. Ann. 430 ; State ex rel. Judge, 21 La. Ann. 728 ), but it is contended that *656 the remittitur having been filed before the judgment was signed, the actual amount in controversy before the Court was only one hundred dollars, and thus below the jurisdiction of this Court. Concededly, the cause involved an amount within the jurisdiction of this Court, at the time it was submitted to the Court, and at the time the decree was rendered, and we do not think that the plaintiff could, after the rendition of the decree, have changed the situation by entering a remittitur after that time without the consent of the defendant (Trenchard vs. N. O. Ry. & Light Co., 123 La. 36 , 48 So. 575 ), and the appeal is therefore sustained.