Case Name: Vogel v. Retaud et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1849-03
Citations: 4 La. Ann. 213
Docket Number: 
Parties: Vogel v. Retaud et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
Vogel v. Retaud et al.
An appeal will be dismissed where the matter really in dispute is under three hundred dollars, though damages are claimed to a larger amount, whore the claim for damages is evidently flotations. Such a claim can give no jurisdiction to the court.
from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Kennedy, J.
Biron, for the appellant.
J. M. Wolfe, Collens and Pecquet, for the defendants.

Opinion:
The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Kino, J.
The plaintiff alleges that under an execution directed against the properly of her husband, the defendant, Rétaud, caused her separate effects to be seized. She avers the value of the property levied upon to be $100, and prays that it be restored to her, and that the defendants be condemned to pay her $250 as damages fpr the wrongful seizure.
The plaintiff's allegations in relation to damages are as follows: "The said Rétaud and Mouney, have caused, by the illegal, arbitrary and vexatious seizure of the property of your petitioner, a real, vindictive, and exemplary damage of two hundred and fifty dollars,, having, without authority or right, seized and taken uway -the 'above described property from the possession of your petitioner, and deprived her at .the same ;tkno of the use of her property to her damage and prejudice."
. No circumstances of aggravation are stated, and thus the only basis laid for vindictive damages is the illegal taking. This claim for heavy damages in proportion to the value of the effects seized, unsupported by proof, is evidently a fictitious demand, which can give no jurisdiction to this court The only amount which can be considered as involved in the suit is $100, the alleged value of the effects seized. This case cannot lie distinguished from that of Orillion v. Slack, 17 La. p. 103. See also 16 La. 183. 3 Rob. 143. 1 An. 311.
Appeal dismissed»