Case ID: la_144/html/0749-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’NIELL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(81 South. 301)
    No. 22451.
    REINE v. PONTCHARTRAIN R. CO.
    (March 3, 1919.
    Rehearing Denied March 31, 1919.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Courts <&wkey;224(ll) — Louisiana Supreme Court — Jurisdiction.
    Where plaintiff magnified his injury and sued for $2,500 and his counsel admitted in his printed brief that $250 would compensate plaintiff, and where Supreme Court assumes that defendant would acknowledge that matter in dispute did not exceed “$2,000, exclusive of interest,” when case was submitted to civil-district court, the appeal should have gone to Court of Appeal.
    
      2. Costs <&wkey;238(l) — Appeal to Court Having no Jurisdiction.
    Plaintiff, by whose fault defendant’s appeal in a personal injury case was brought to Supreme Court, when in view of amount involved it should have gone to the Court of Appeal, should pay the cost of appeal to the Supreme Court.
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; E. K. Skinner, Judge.
    Action by George W. Reine against the Pontehartrain Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Cause transferred to the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans.
    Denegre, Leovy & ChafCe and Harry McCall, all of New Orleans, for appellant.
    Charles Louque, of New Orleans, for appellee.
   O’NIELL, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment allowing plaintiff $250 damages for personal injuries. He sued for $2,500. “for suffering and pain” from a scalp wound; but his learned counsel has frankly admitted in his argument that the injury was not so serious as he first thought it was; and he concedes in his printed brief that the $250 would compensate plaintiff for his suffering. No doubt appellant’s learned counsel also will acknowledge — for the record plainly supports the admission — -that the matter in dispute did not “exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest,” when the evidence was heard and the case was submitted to the civil district court. Our opinion, in other words, is that plaintiff has magnified his pain and suffering, and that the appeal should have gone to the Court of Appeal. According to our ruling in Ham v. Louisiana & N. R. Co., 136 La. 1083, 16 South. 133, and in French v. Trout Creek Lumber Co., 141 La. 18, 74 South. 575, the plaintiff, by whose fault the appeal was brought here, should pay the costs of this appeal.

It is ordered that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans, the plaintiff, appellee, to pay the costs of the appeal taken to the Supreme Court. •