Case Name: LONG et al. v. DICKERSON et al.; McCulloch et al. v. SAME
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1909-12-13
Citations: 127 La. 341
Docket Number: No. 17,661
Parties: LONG et al. v. DICKERSON et al. McCulloch et al. v. SAME.
Judges: See dissenting opinion of BREAUX, C. J., 53 South. 600.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 342–348

Head Matter:
(53 South. 598.)
No. 17,661.
LONG et al. v. DICKERSON et al. McCulloch et al. v. SAME.
(Dec. 13, 1909.
On Rehearing, Nov. 28, 1910.)
(Syllabus by the Gourt.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 356*) — Failure to Take in Time — Dismissal.
The court will not grant a motion to dismiss an appeal, sought to be taken as a suspensive appeal, on the ground that the appeal was not taken in time to act as a suspensive appeal, when the appeal is before the court and has all the elements .necessary to make it a devolutive appeal. The fact that a suspensive appeal bond has been given will not destroy any of the elements necessary for a devolutive appeal, and therefore to dismiss the appeal would be the doing of a vain thing, which does not commend itself to the court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 356.*]
2. Courts (§ 224*) — Jurisdiction — Amount in Controversy.
When several heirs sue for the erasure of a mortgage on property in which they have an interest valued at less than $2,000, and the mortgage sought to be canceled is for an amount over $2,000, exclusive of interest, the amount of the mortgage, and the value of the interest of the heirs, will determine the question of jurisdiction. Bussiere v. Williams, 37 La. Ann. 387; State ex reí. Bloss v. Judges of Court of Appeals, 33 La. Ann. 1351; Endom v. Ludeling, 34 La. Ann. 1024. The plaintiff sued to have the whole mortgage canceled and erased from the records of the clerk’s office.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 487, 608-618; Dec. Dig. § 224.*]
On Rehearing.
(Additional Syllabus by auditorial Staff.)
3. Wills (§ 836*) — Usufruct-Payment of Debt of Succession.
Civ. Code, art. 585, providing that if a legacy of a usufruct includes all the property of testator, and the universal usufructuary advances the sum necessary to discharge the debts of the succession, the capital shall be returned to him at the expiration of the usufruct without interest, but, if he does not make this advance, the heir has the choice of making the necessary advance himself for which the usufructuary shall allow him interest for the period of the usufruct or to sell a part of the property subject to the usufruct, applies to ordinary usufructs or to the usufruct of the survivor in community.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Wills, Dec. Dig. § 836.*]
4. Limitation of Actions (§ 155*) — Prescription — Payment of Interest on Mortgage — Usufructuary — Effect on Right of Heirs.
Where the survivor in community as the usufructuary and the heirs of testator jointly owned land subject to a mortgage, and after the succession was closed the survivor went into possession as usufructuary, and continued to pay interest on the mortgage each year both for her half of the debt and for the half owed by the heirs, with their full knowledge, and necessarily with their consent either express or tacit, she was their agent for carrying their part of the debt by payment of the interest, and her payment interrupted the operation of limitations in favor of the heirs.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Limitation of Actions, Cent. Dig. §§ 623-630; Dec. Dig. § 155.*]
Breaux, C. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Carroll; F. X. Ransdell, Judge.
Actions by Mrs. Margaret McCulloch Long and husband and by Miss Lucile McCulloch and others against Elvin Dickerson and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Reversed and rendered.
Davis, Webb & Browne, for appellants. Snyder & Gilfoil, R. P. Kennedy, and G. S. Wyly, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
BRÉAUX, C. J.
Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not taken in time to act as a suspensive appeal.
The appeal is now before us.
The question is unimportant, and, if the grounds were sustained, the appeal would still remain as a devolutive appeal.
The bond was in amount fixed by the court. It is good as a devolutive appeal.
The doing of a vain thing does not recommend itself.' The suspensive appeal will not be dismissed, as it would serve no purpose to dismiss it.
The appellees also urged their motion to dismiss ratione materiae of the appeal.
There are two injunction suits.
There are eight heirs. Mrs. Long enjoined as to her interest. She claims one-sixteenth of the property as her share. Pour of the other heirs joined in one injunction as to their interest. They are Miss Lucile and James McCulloch, Mrs. Elise McCulloch, and Mrs. Katherine McCulloch. The other three heirs did not join in these petitions.
The claim of defendant in injunction is for over $2,000.
The highest amount claimed by the heirs jointly is $2,000.
The question is whether or not the amount of plaintiff's claim or the value of the heir's interest in the succession determines the amount in dispute; in the latter case, the amount in dispute would not exceed $2,000.
The judgment orders cancellation of a mortgage for an amount over $2,000 in value exclusive of interest. The appeal is within this court's jurisdiction. Bussiere v. Williams, 37 La. Ann. 387; State ex rel. Bloss v. Judges of Court of Appeals, 33 La. Ann. 1351; Endom v. Ludeling, 34 La. Ann. 1024.
The motion to dismiss is denied.