Case ID: la-ann_21/html/0296-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Howell, J. Howe, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 1512.
    William Gogreve v. John Windhorst. — William Schroeder, third opponent.
    Whore the value of a schooner, the ownership of which is in dispute, is shown to be aboye iiv* hundred dollars by the amount of the bond for injunction, and th9 amount of the appeal bond, the ajipeal will not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Constitution, art. 74.
    In a dispute about the ownership of a schooner, .the opinion .of.the Judge a quo on the questions of fact is entitled to great weight when sustained by the testimony offered and in thw record, without objection irom the opposing party.
    from Second District Court, parish of Jefferson. Cazahaf, J.
    
      Saucier & Michinard, for plaintiff and appellant. J". Hawlcins, for third opponent, appellee.
   Howell, J.

A motion is made to dismiss this appeal on the ground that there is nothing in the record showing that the matter in dispute exceeds five hundred dollars.

By reference to the record we find that, in obtaining an injunction against the sale of the schooner claimed by him, the third opponent gave a bond for $1200; that afterwards he had said schooner released on giving a bond for $1000; that about the time of the seizure one of the witnesses offered the defendant $1000 for it ; and that it was then estimated by the defendant at $2000. The appeal bond given by the plaintiff and appellant is for $1000.

From these facts and figures we think it abundantly shown that the matter in dispute (the schooner) exceeds five hundred dollars in value.

It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss be overruled with costs.

ON THE MERITS.

Howe, J.

The plaintiff in this case having, on the sixteenth November, 1866, obtained a judgment against the defendant, caused a writ of fieri facias to be issued thereon, under which the sheriff seized, as property of defendant, the schooner Matilda.

On the twelfth December, 1866, William Schroeder, third opponent, enjoined the sale, claiming to be the sole owner of the schooner by purchase from the defendant in March, 1866.

The plaintiff, in answer to the opposition, alleged that the sale from Windhorst to Schroeder, if any there was, was simulated.

Upon the trial of this issue, the third opponent established the reality of the sale to the satisfaction of the Judge a quo, and the opposition was maintained and the injunction perpetuated. No objection was made to the testimony adduced by the opponent, and it seems to sustain the judgment; and, in a case like this, the opinion of the Judge before whom the cause was tried is entitled to great weight. 6 La. 31; 10 A. 92; 561; 14 A. 224.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgment from which the plaintiff has appealed be affirmed with costs.

Rehearing refused.