Case Name: Meyer Weill.-Mechanics and Traders' Insurance Company vs. Mrs. Mary Ann Levi et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1888-02
Citations: 40 La. Ann. 135
Docket Number: No. 9997
Parties: Meyer Weill.—Mechanics and Traders’ Insurance Company vs. Mrs. Mary Ann Levi et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 135–138

Head Matter:
No. 9997.
Meyer Weill.—Mechanics and Traders’ Insurance Company vs. Mrs. Mary Ann Levi et al.
Where a fund exceeding §2,000, realized by the sale of mortgaged property, is in the hands of the sheriff, and the whole fund is claimed by the seizing creditor, and §1,000 of said fund is claimed by a third opponent in preference to said creditor, this Court lias jurisdiction of the case.
The controversy involves the distribution of the entire fund.
Where* the minutes of the court show that the motion for the appeal and the order thereon granting the appeal were made in open court, parol evidence is inadmissible, in the absence of any averment,of fraud or error,-to contradict the record. The record is conclusive.
Sections 128 and 2897 of the Revised Statutes confer no privilege upon real estate in favor of ' attorneys at law for their professional fees in obtaining judgment maintaining the title and possession of defendants in a petitory action.
The moment such a judgment becomes final its object is attained, and nothing remains to which a privilege could attach.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Voorhies, J.
Singleton, Browne <& Choate and Percy Roberts for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
W. S. Benedict, Chas. Louque and Farrar & Kmttsclimitt for Defendants and Appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J. The motion rests upon two grounds :
1st. Want of jurisdiction; and
2d. Want of proper order of appeal.
The plaintiffs seized and sold certain real estate of the defendant, which realized $13,000. A third opposition was made claiming $1,000 out of that amount in preference to the plaintiffs.
The contest relates exclusively to the distribution of a fund exceeding $2,000. The plaintiffs claim the entire fund,
It has been decided in a similar case that this Court had jurisdiction. Renshaw vs. Stafford, 34 Ann. 1138.
The third opponent, who is appellee, claims that the motion of appeal was not made and granted in open court; and for the purpose-of showing this, he obtained from this Court a qualified order authorizing the court of the first instance to receive evidence on the subject.
The minutes of that court show that the motion was made and allowed in open court.
The order for the reception of evidence by the lower court reserved the right of the appellant touching the admissibility of the evidence.
An entry on the minutes may, in exceptional cases, be attached and declared null, but this could only be done for causes and reasons which have not been alleged in the instant case.
Under the showing made, the proof adduced by the appellee is inadmissible and cannot be considered.
The minutes as they stand conclude him. 4 N. S. 176; 14 Ann. 726; 34 Ann. 1117.
The motion is therefore denied.