Case Name: City of New Orleans vs. A. H. Schoenhausen
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1887-02
Citations: 39 La. Ann. 237
Docket Number: No. 9883
Parties: City of New Orleans vs. A. H. Schoenhausen.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
No. 9883.
City of New Orleans vs. A. H. Schoenhausen.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over a tax suit, in which a suiu not exceeding $2000 is claimed, where the constitutionality or legality of the tax sued for is not put at issue, and where the question presented is one of procedure only.
If the amount sued for exceeded $2000, the court would, as in ordinary similar cases, in which money is claimed, have jurisdiction over the question of procedure.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the parish of Orleans. Houston, J.
IF. TI- Boyers, City Attorney, and B. K. Miller, Assistant City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellee.
MacMahon & Pratt, for Defendant and Appellant.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
The defendant appeals from a judgment condemning him to pay $1000 for a license, and, besides, certain penalties and costs of suit.
The defense was simply, that the proceeding by rule was not " due process of iaw," and a general denial.
He moved for a suspensive appeal, which the Court allowed on his furnishing a bond for $1500.
The motion, to dismiss is based on the following grounds, viz:
That this Court has no jurisdiction over the matter; and,
That the appeal bond is insufficient in amount.
It is apparent that the issue presented does not.involve the constitutionality or legality of the license tax claimed; but only the validity of the proceeding by rule ; in other words, a question of procedure.
It is only when an issue on the constitutionality or legality of a tax is presented, that this Court has jurisdiction, regardless of amount. If the sum in controversy here exceeded $2000, this Court would have jurisdiction, as it would of any ordinary case, in which a sum exceed ing that amount would be claimed, and it would pass on tlio question of form. Constitution, Art. 81; State vs. Brewer, 9 Ann. 64; Ib. 305; Ib. 350; Stubbs vs. McGuire, 32 Ann. 817; State vs. Tsni Ho, 37 Ann. 50; State ex rel. David vs. Judges, 37 Ann. 898, and cases there cited.
This view of the case dispenses us from passing on the sufficiency of the bond furnished for a suspensive appeal.
Appeal dismissed.