Williamson v. Ruston Steam Laundry, Inc.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 1, 1970 236 So. 2d 290; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 25, 1955 79 So. 2d 504; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 18, 1906 3 Teiss. 485; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., February 1, 1973 269 So. 2d 850
Williamson v. Ruston Steam Laundry, Inc., 134 So. 720 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931).
Cited by
- Simms v. Lawrence Bros. 72 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
- Simms v. Lawrence Bros. 72 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
- Deichman v. Selle 34 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1948
- Southland Inv. Co. v. Michel 150 So. 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
- Semore v. Southern Life & Health Ins. Co. 147 So. 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
- Southern Furniture Co. v. Mead 146 So. 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Bright v. Thompson 38 La. Ann. 801
- Pinckney v. Wolf 41 La. Ann. 306
- 6 So. 27 not in our corpus
- Lea v. Orleans 46 La. Ann. 1444
- 16 So. 456 not in our corpus
Opinion text
DREW, J. Plaintiff sued for damages alleged to have been caused him by a collision with defendant’s car. He itemizes the damage as being $89.29 for repairing’ his car, and $25 for loss of use of the car while same was being repaired. He recovered judgment in the lower court for the repair " bill, amounting to $89.29, and defendants have appealed. The only proof offered by plaintiff and his witnesses as to the amount of damage is that the repair bill on his car was $89.29, less $3.50 for a windshield that had been previously broken, and the loss of use of the car for two days. Plaintiff placed his loss on this account at from $4 to $5 per day. It is clear that the amount in dispute is less than $100, and this court has no jurisdiction of the case. It has been repeatedly held that, whenever the matter in dispute appears to be really under the lower limit of the jurisdiction of this court, though from the averments. and prayer of petition it is represented as exceeding the same, the claim will be treated as not serious and as fictitious and garbed solely to bring it within appellate jurisdiction, and the appeal' will be dismissed ex proprio motu. Bright v. Thompson, 38 La. Ann. 801 ; Pinckney v. Wolf, 41 La. Ann. 306 , 6 So. 27 ; and Lea v. C. A. Orleans, 46 La. Ann. 1444 , 16 So. 456 . Nowhere in the record, other than in the petition, does the plaintiff claim damages in the amount of $100. This court clearly has no jurisdiction, and it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal be dismissed, with costs.