Case Name: The State ex rel. Gervais Lêche, District Attorney, vs. Augustus Fowler
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1889-04
Citations: 41 La. Ann. 380
Docket Number: No. 10,269
Parties: The State ex rel. Gervais Lêche, District Attorney, vs. Augustus Fowler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 380–382

Head Matter:
No. 10,269.
The State ex rel. Gervais Lêche, District Attorney, vs. Augustus Fowler.
In questions involving the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it is settled practice that if it appears from the pleadings that one of the parties to the suit has an appealable interest entitling him to appeal to the Supreme Court, the same right must he recognized in favor of his opponent.
An elector who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States in pursuance of Art. 185 of the State Constitution, is a citizen of the State and qualified to hold the office of coroner.
APPEAL from tlie Twenty-Sixth District Court, Parish of Jefferson. Most, J.
Walter II. liogers, Attorney General, Gervais Leche, District Attorney, and A. IS. Billings, for the Relator and Appellant.
II. N. Gautier, Mott, Brolla & Augustin, and F. 8. Brolla for the Respondent and Appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Poche, J.
The ground of the motion is that this Court is without jurisdiction ratione materia), because the relator, who is appellant, has no appealable interest in the controversy.
The suit involves the right of the defendant and appellee to the office of coroner of the parish of Jefferson, the fees and emoluments of which are alleged to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars in value, and the record contains an admission to that effect by the appellee.
It is therefore undeniable, and it is not contested, that if cast in the suit the defendant would have had a right of appeal to this Court.
It is a settled practice in our jurisprudence that if one of the parties in the controversy has an appealable interest at issue, the other party is ipso facto vested with the same right. State ex rel. Nichols, Governor, vs. Mayor, recently decided. Handy vs. New Orleans, 39 Ann. 107; Ready vs. New Orleans, 27 Ann. 169; State ex rel. vs. Judge, 23 Ann. 595; State ex rel. Murtagh, vs. Judge, 23 Ann. 761.
The motion to dismiss is therefore denied at appellee's costs.