The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1869-08-18

Joseph T. Swami vs. Ann L. Gayle,
Administrative. Appeal from Parish
Court Of Onachita. Ludeling, G. j.
The plaintiff sued the Administrative OF
the succession of w. II. Gayle in the
Parish Court; and he prayed for judg-
ment against the administrators for
upwards of five thousand dollars, and
for the recognition of his mortgage on
certain property situated in the parish
of Ouaehita. He also prayed for the
sale of the mortgaged property to pay
his debts, according to law. The ap-
pelIant has insisted in this court that
the Parish Conrt, which tried the case,
was without jurisdiction ratione mate
ria
IF this he true, the judgment render
ed By that court is void. c. p, Act
90. And We cannot give vitality OF
validity to that Judgment, because an
appellate court never can give judg
ment which the court quo could not
n. S., 10.
1t is our duty, therefore, to notice,
cx-officio, the want of jurisdiction,
rdtione mate,ia.
The question presented is, whether
the Parish Court has jurisdiction in a
suit wherein a succession is plaintiff or
defendant, when the amount in contro-
yersy exceeds five hundred dollars
Article 81 of the constitution of 1868,
fixing the jurisdiction of the parish
courts, declares that they "shall have
concurrent jurisdiction with justices CT
the peace. in all cases where the
amount in controversy is more than
twenty-fv dollars and less than one
hundred dollars, exclusive OF interest.
They shall have exclusive original jul
risdiction in ordinary suits in all cases
when the amount in dispute exceeds
one hundred dollars, and does not ex-
coed FIVE hundred dollars. All success
sions shall be opened and settled in the
parish courts; and all suits, in which a
succession is either plaintiff or defend
ant, may be brought either in the pa
IRISH or district courts, according to the
amount involved" etc.
1t appears from the journals Of the
Convention that this article was
changed after the Convention had once
adopted it in different form. When
originally reported by the Judiciary
Committee, the article contained the
following sentence: SIN probate mat
tiers they shall have concurrent juris-
diction with the district courts in all
cases where there exists a condensation
or suit and the amount in dispute ex-
ceeds five hundred dollars This was
stricken out, and. in lieu thereof, the
following substituted: Sand all suits
in which succession is either plaintiff
or defendant, may be brought either in
the parish OR district court, according
to the amount involved" As the arti-
Gle originally stood, the plaintiff had
the option to file his suit either in the
parish or district court, when he had q
claim for money against a succession
and the amount exceeded five hundred
dollars. As the article was finally
adopted, it confers the right on the
Plaintiff to sue il the parish court;
whenever the amount claimed does moi
exceed FIVE hundred dollars, and sue,
cession is either plaintiff or defendant
And when the sum demanded exceed
ed FIVE hundred dollars. and success
ion is either plaintiff or defendant
And when the sum demanded exceed.
ed FIVE hundred dollars, and a success
sion is party to the suit, the plaintiff:
must bring the suits in the distric
court. Thus, it is the amount alone
which determines whether tie parish
or district courts have jurisdiction
That Inconvenience and delays, in tn,
settlement of SUGGESTIONS may result
from this change in article 81 of thu
constitution, may be true. But tina
will not justify us in torturing a mean
ing out of the words of the article
which they cannot be fairly made t.
bear. The evil can only be remedie,
by amending the constitution.
1t is commended that the General AS
sembly has given legislative inter
ton, in Act No. al, adopted in 1865
tits not the province of the Genera
Assembly to interpret the provisions G
the constitution for courts. If the oh
ject of the law was to explain or inter
pref the article of the constitution, a
the title of the act would Indicate
IAN act further defining the .jurisdic
ton of the parish courts, in succession
cases." then the General Assembl
transcribed its powers, and trenche
upon the jurisdiction of the courts, a
only legislative powers are vested i
the General Assembly. Art. Is, con
stitntion of 1868.
The judicial powers of the Governo
are vested in the courts. Art. 70, con
stitution of 1868.
If, on the other hand, the object O
the law was to confer other jurisdiction
rp fhn ,oh y = IL
lous to two constitutional objections
l. That the object of the law is not ex
pressed in its title art. ia, constitu
ton of 1868. 2. That the General As
sembly had not the power to chang
Jurisdiction fixed or limited in the con
stltuti0n-they could not amend tn
constitution. Art. l47, constitution O
1868.
1. Defining the jurisdiction is yer,
different thing from extending or en-
larglng the jurisdiction. As the tern
used in the title of the act in question
It means explaining, Interpreting
Hence the title does not express tn
object of the law. 2. The clause il
Article 81, "and such Observation-Disclosures
as may be conferred on them by law.
permitted the General Assembly t
grant TO parish courts "other iurisdic
ton in matters where the constitution,
had not defined, fixed or limited il
but IL did not authorize the Legislator
to change or amend the constitution
itself. For example, it did not empow
er the General Assembly to give tn
parish courts original Jurisdiction i
ordinary civil suits, when the amour