Case ID: la-ann_49/html/0351-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Miller, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 12,329.
    Anselm B. Murray vs. Kimbro & Allen.
    A controversy involving the title to nine mules valued at one hundred and forty dollars each is not within our jurisdiction.
    The court exproprio motu takes notice of the want of jurisdiction, and dismisses the appeal.
    A PPEAL from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia, Voorhies, J.
    
    
      Foster & Broussard for Plaintiffs in Injunction, Appellants.
    
      
      Walter J. Burke for Defendant, Appellee.
    Submitted on briefs January 5, 1897.
    Opinion handed down January 18, 1897.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Miller, J.

This appeal is from the judgment dismissing the third opposition of the appellants claiming the ownership of nine mules seized under plaintiff’s judgment for one thousand one hundred dollars against the defendants Kimbro and Allen.

We do not perceive the basis for our appellate jurisdiction. There is no evidence of the value of the mules except that afforded by the sale of a large number, including the nine in controversy. That price was one hundred and forty dollars each. The plaintiff’s judgment was for a sum below our jurisdiction; the amount in controversy on the third opposition is manifestly insufficient to give this court jurisdiction.

Although there is no motion to dismiss, we must take notice of the want of jurisdiction of this court, apparent, as we think, on the record.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that this appeal be dismissed at appellants’ costs.