Case Name: KELLY, WEBER & CO., Limited, v. VORDENBAUMEN LUMBER CO., Limited
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-04-14
Citations: 132 La. 916
Docket Number: No. 19,161
Parties: KELLY, WEBER & CO., Limited, v. VORDENBAUMEN LUMBER CO., Limited.
Judges: PROVOSTY, J., dissents.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 916–918

Head Matter:
(61 South. 870.)
No. 19,161.
KELLY, WEBER & CO., Limited, v. VORDENBAUMEN LUMBER CO., Limited.
(April 14, 1913.
Rehearing Denied May 12, 1913.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal and Error (§ 46*) — Jurisdiction— Amount in Controversy.
This court is without jurisdiction of an appeal taken by a clerk of a district court from a judgment rejecting his claim for $194.50 demanded of the appellant in a cause for preparing, for the purposes of the transcript of appeal, a copy of the transcript of the parol testimony taken in such cause.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 198-201; Dec. Dig. § 46.*1
Provosty, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette; Wm. Campbell, Judge.
Action by Kelly, Weber & Co., Limited, against the Vordenbaumen Lumber Company, Limited. Appeal on rule of clerk.
Appeal dismissed.
John L. Kennedy and Crow Girard, both ■of La Fayette, and Story & Pugh, of Crowley, for appellant. Pujo, Moss & Miller, of Lake Charles, O. C. Mouton, of La Fayette, and W. B. Williamson, of Lake Charles, for ■appellee.

Opinion:
MONROE, J.
The clerk of the district •court has appealed from a judgment rejecting his demand for the payment of $194.50, which he alleges is due him by the plaintiff in the above-entitled suit "for preparing a copy of the transcript of the parol testimony taken on the trial of this cause," for the appeal whereby the case was brought to this court, the cause thus referred to being the •cause bearing the above title, with the number 19,065 of the docket of this court (62 South. 910, 133 La. —), and which has been this day decided.
The ground upon which the appellate jurisdiction of this court is invoked has not been indicated by tbe learned counsel, and we know of none upon which it might be supposed to rest.
The appeal is therefore dismissed, at the •cost of the appellant.
PROVOSTY, J., dissents.