Case Name: Mrs. Magdalena Mayer vs. Louis Stahr. Hermann Pohlmann, Intervenor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-01
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 57
Docket Number: No. 8691
Parties: Mrs. Magdalena Mayer vs. Louis Stahr. Hermann Pohlmann, Intervenor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 57–60

Head Matter:
No. 8691.
Mrs. Magdalena Mayer vs. Louis Stahr. Hermann Pohlmann, Intervenor.
The jurisdiction of this Court attaches to a suit in. which oue thousand dollars and interest and five per cent, attorney’s fees thereon are claimed. The fees do not grow out of the capital and are no interest thereon. They constitute a distinct item of indebtedness.
An intervenor has no right to substitute himself to a defendant, and raise issues not set up by him * particularly, where he is a third possessor, acquiring real estate, mortgaged with the pact do non alienando, for the payment of a sum of money, and has legal notice of the mortgage and pact.
Such intervenor cannot require security against the appearance of the lost mortgage note, where defendant did not ask the same.
APPEAL from tbe Civil District Court for tbe Parish of Orleans. Tissot, J.
Sambola & Duoros for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Wm. D. Mills for the Intervenor and Appellant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
This is an action on a lost mortgage note for one thousand dollars, with eight per cent, interest since maturity and five per cent, attorney's fees.
The defendant, who is the drawer and mortgagor, having failed to answer, a default was entered against him.
A party claiming to own the mortgaged property appeared in the suit, both by answer and petition of intervention, in which it is claimed :
1. That the property cannot be sold to satisfy the mortgage debt, unless security be given to guard against the appearance of the lost note.
2. That the attorney's per centage cannot be demanded, because of an offer to pay the note in capital and interest, made previous to suit, provided the security was furnished.
The intervenor calls his vendor in warranty who, answering, denies all liability and any right of interference by the intervenor.
There was judgment rejecting the intervention and condemning the defendant to pay plaintiff's claim, capital and interest and attorney's fees, with costs of suit.
From this judgment the intervenor has appealed.
The plaintiff and appellee suggests want of jurisdiction in this Court over the matter at issue.
The claim is made up of two distinct amounts, each constituting a capital of itself: first, that of the note, which is one thousand dollars, with the accruing conventional interest thereon; and, second, that of the attorney's fees, which cannot be less than fifty dollars. The interest grows from the capital of the note and is an accessory thereto. The fees do not grow from that capital, are no interest upon it, but constitute a distinct debt, created by contract, contingent upon the happening of an event, the case of non-payment at maturity of the debt secured by mortgage. 26 An. 61; 14 An. 35. The demand at the date of the institution of the suit exceeded one thousand dollars in capital, exclusive of interest. That fact settles the question of jurisdiction adversely to appellee.