Case Name: Succession of SANGFRIED
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1905-03-13
Citations: 114 La. 878
Docket Number: No. 15,481
Parties: Succession of SANGFRIED.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 878–883

Head Matter:
(38 South. 593.)
No. 15,481.
Succession of SANGFRIED.
(March 13, 1905.
On the Merits, May 8, 1905.)
APPEAL — JURISDICTION—ADMINISTRATION—ACCOUNTING — OPPOSITION — AMENDMENT — FAMILY MEETING — INTERDICT — EXCESS OP REVENUES — REP AIRS.'
l! Where the issues raised and determined in the district court involve an amount over $2,-000, exclusive of interest, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. The question whether these issues should properly have been so raised and passed upon is not before the court on a motion to dismiss the appeal.
On the Merits.
2. Opponent to an account homologated so far as not opposed retains a right to amend his pleading, and claim a larger amount than at first claimed, provided it does not change the nature of the demand.
3. A family meeting should be held, and the' approval of the court obtained, in order that an amount in excess of revenues may be legally expended, and charged to the interdict for the support of the interdict.
4. Repairs made by the curator on the building of the interdict, insurance, and taxes paid are allowed.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Thomas C. W. Ellis, Judge.
In the matter of the succession of Anna B. Sangfried. In the trial of an opposition in the district court, Philip C. Doerr, individually and as one of the joint administrators, appeals.
Modified.
James Barkley Rosser, Jr., for appellant Philip Doerr. Dart & Kernan, for appellee George Doerr. Valentine J. Stentz, for appellees John Zophi, et al.
Rehearing denied May 22, 1905.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
NICHOLLS, J.
This appeal is asked to he dismissed upon the ground that the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction ratione materise, in that the fund for distribution is less than $2,000. Article 85 of the Constitution of 1898 does not make the jurisdiction of this court dependent upon the fact that the matter in dispute is the distribution of a fund exceeding $2,000. Its language is that the court has appellate jurisdiction "where the matter in dispute or the fund to be distributed whatever may be the amount claimed shall exceed two thousand dollars exclusive of interest."
An examination of the record discloses that not only are the proceeds of the sale of the real estate involved in this litigation, but that other issues involving amounts largely exceeding that required to give this court appellate jurisdiction, were not only raised, but determined contradictorily between the parties, in the district court Whether they should properly have been so raised and passed upon is not a matter which this court could consider on such a motion .as the present. The dismissal of appeal asked for is refused.