Case ID: la-ann_9/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Buchanan, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Succession of Nathan Jarvis—On the Opposition of Barrierre, Lacapere & Co.
    "Where the claim is against an executor personally, and is for less than $300, the appeal will be dismissed, notwithstanding the amount of the succession may have exceeded that sum. Art. 1152 does not apply in such a case.
    APPEAL from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Reynolds, J.
    
      J. Magne, for opponent:
    The amount in dispute being only $02 70, this case does not come within the jurisdiction of the court. “ which extends only to cases where the matter in dispute exceeds $300.” Constitution of 1845, Art. 63. Constitution of 1852, Art. 62. C. P. 874, 875. Copley v. Ross, A. R. 310. Frellsen v. Copley, 2 A. R. 911; and the exceptions pointed out by those instruments in relation to the legality or constitutionality of taxes, &c., or to fines, &c., imposed by municipal corporations, are clearly inapplicable here.
    It is contended, that there is another exception in all succession cases ; but this is clearly a mistake. The succession cases may be divided into two classes : 1st, those in respect to the appointment or removal of curators, administrators, &c. ; and 2d, those in which some property or right of property is litigated.
    On the cases of the first class, in which the parties are merely contending for the administration of the estate, the jurisprudence was during many years unsettled — not as to the basis of $300 giving jurisdiction, on which all agreed— but as to the way of fixing that basis; thus it was contended on one side that the amount giving jurisdiction was the total value of the estate to be administered upon, while, on the other, it was contended that it was only the value of the commissions which those curators, &c.., were entitled to. This uncertainty, however, was done aw'ay by the promulgation of the Code of Practice, declaring that the amount of the estate was the true basis.
    Besides, it must be observed: 1st, that, in this case, the appellant is now acting in his personal capacity, the judgment a quo being rendered against him personally; 2d, that this case has no relation whatsoever to the appointment or removal of the executor.
    
      Durant & Horner, for executor and appellant:
    The claim of the appellees was less than $300 — but this matter was in the nature of a concurso, and the whole estate exceeds $300. This court, therefore, has jurisdiction. See O. P. 1049, 1050. L. O. 1152. 8 L. R. 166. 11 L. R. 462. 3 Rob. 5. 12 Rob. 415. 2 An. 189.
   Buchanan, J.

In this case, the matter in dispute is only ninety-two dollars and seventy cents. The Article 1152 of the Civil Code is not considered to be applicable to the present case, which is an appeal from a judgment against an executor personally.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.