Case Name: E. Fudickar vs. Monroe Athletic Club
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1897-06-21
Citations: 49 La. Ann. 1457
Docket Number: No. 12,530
Parties: E. Fudickar vs. Monroe Athletic Club.
Judges: Nicholls, C. J., absent; ill.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 1457–1461

Head Matter:
No. 12,530.
E. Fudickar vs. Monroe Athletic Club.
On Motion to Dismiss. — This court had jurisdiction of the amount to be distributed; it followed that it had jurisdiction to pass upon the respective claims to the amount.
On the Merits, — 'By agreement the plaintiff held the mortgage first in rank.
Another creditor had waived its right and consented not to enter any claim for the fund (proceeds of the mortgaged property).
Another, a third creditor, had aprivilege prior in rank to plaintiff’s mortgage.
This priority also primed the rank of the secopd creditor, but who, by its waiver, placed itself in a position not to compete with the third creditor as to rank, who, by the effect of the agreement, became second as to rank of claim. Second, the creditor had supplied to the owner material for the construction of the building, which could not be removed without impairing the building.
He had a privilege for his claim.
The appraisement made of this material, separate from the construction, was not a waiver; having been made in compliance with an alternative demand.
4PPEAL from the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita. Potts, J.
Potts & Hudson for Plaintiff, Appellee.
Stubbs & Russell for R. J. Searcy, Third Opponent, Appellee.
M. M. Boatner and E. T. Lamkin for MonroeBrick Company, Limited, Third Opponent, Appellant.
Argued arid submitted June 5, 1897.
Opinion handed down June 21, 1897.

Opinion:
On MotioN to Dismiss the Appeal
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
One of the opponents, R. J. Searcy, moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction ratione materise.
We do not think the motion should be sustained. The amount within the court's control, to be distributed, is more than seven thousand dollars.
The creditors' claims are within this court's jurisdiction except one. The fund to be distributed is necessarily the test of jurisdiction; here the contest relates to the distribution of an entire fund.
The entire fund is claimed by creditors for amounts respectively within the lower limit of this court's jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction vests, though one of the creditors claims an amount less than two thousand dollars out of the larger sum to be distributed. Renshaw vs. Stafford, 34 An. 1138; Meyer Weil vs. Levi, 40 An. 135.