Case ID: la-ann_12/html/0784-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cole, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Holland v. Duchamp.
    An appeal will not lie to the Supreme Court in an injunction suit to arrest the execution of an order of seizure and sale for a less amount than three hundred dollars, although the preperty seized Is worth more than $800, and the plaintiff in injunction claims in his petition a larger sum for damages and attorney’s fees.
    APPEAL from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Duvigneaud, J.
    
      J. Livingston, for plaintiff and appellant.
    
      S. Pedesdaux, for defendant.
   Cole, J.

A motion has been made to dismiss this appeal on the ground, that the matter in dispute does not exceed three hundred dollars.

Plaintiff sued out an injunction to arrest the execution of an order of seizure and sale, granted on a mortgage note of $250.

He maintains that this court has jurisdiction, because the land seized on which the mortgages existed, is worth more than $300, and because he has asked, in the petition of injunction, for five hundred dollars damages and one hundred dollars attorney’s fees.

The value of the land seized, cannot invest this court with jurisdiction, because in order to relieve the land from the seizure, it would be necessary to assume jurisdiction over a suit of an amount less than $300.

The same objection applies to the damages claimed, for they are averred to have been suffered from the illegal and premature issuing of an order of seisure and sale for an amount less than $300, and we could only decide on the liability of appellee for the damages, by inquiring into the correctness of that judgment.

It is clear that this court is without jurisdiction of this cause.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that this appeal be dismissed with costs.