Case Name: Henry Renshaw vs. G. W. Stafford, Executor. R. P. Hunter, Third Opponent
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1882-11
Citations: 34 La. 1138
Docket Number: No. 8542
Parties: Henry Renshaw vs. G. W. Stafford, Executor. R. P. Hunter, Third Opponent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 1138–1142

Head Matter:
No. 8542.
Henry Renshaw vs. G. W. Stafford, Executor. R. P. Hunter, Third Opponent.
The third opponent claiming $1000 out of a larger fund to be distributed by the executor, this court has jurisdiction. 1
The professional services rendered in the premises by the third opponent, were in fact against the interests of the succession from which he claims payment of his fee. He is, therefore, not entitled to it.
APPEAL from the Twelfth District Court, Parish of Rapides. Harbin, J.
T. L. Bayne, Henry BensJiaw Jr., J. G. White and B. J. Boivman, for Plaintiff and Appellant:
"Whether this case be viewed as coming under the clause in the Constitution of 1879 of “ the matter in dispute,” or under the clause of “the fund to be distributed,” the plaintiff’s right of appeal is clear.
1.If it he regarded as falling under the clause of “the matter in dispute,” ibis settled beyond controversy that it is the plaintiff’s demand that is the matter iu dispute, and not the demand of third opponent. 31 An. 452; 30 An 623 ; 2 An. 190 ; 8 L. 167; 11 L. 462.
2.The Convention incorporated this clause from the Constitutions of 1808,1852. 1845 and 1812, with a full knowledge of this construction of that clause, and sanctioned it hy adopting it without change.
3.If it be viewed as coming under the clause “ the fund to be distributed,” whatever be tbe amount therein claimed, it is the amount of the fund to be distributed, and not the amount claimed by the opponent, that determines the jurisdiction.
4.The amount in dispute, or the amount of the fund to be distributed, give distinct and separate rights of appeal, and one cannot be made to infringe or cut off the right granted by the other.
On the Merits
5.The suit of Rensliaw vs. Stafford, Executor, et als., was a revocatory action. 6 An. 87 ; 11 L. 419; H. D 1030, Nos. 3 and. 8.
6.The judgment in a revocatory action does not avail those not privies nor parties. 9 R. 28; 6 L. 540. It annuls only so far as the plaintiff is concerned. C. O. 1973 ; 6 An. 552. Therefore, the judgment did not return the property to the succession of Stafford, hut ordered it to be sold to pay the plaintiff. Not being returned to the succession, its proceeds cannot be subject to the claims of the succession.
7.In whatever light this judgment he viewed, whether as returning or not returning the property to the succession, the plaintiff has a privilege superior to all others.
8.The services of third opponent are so interwoven with services rendered Mrs. Stafford, who was claiming the property as her own, that they cannot be separated, nor could they, * in representing a claim so conflicting to the interest of the succession, enure to the benefit of the succession.
B. B. Hunter, propria persona.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
Hunter, the third opponent, claims to be paid exactly one thousand dollars out of the proceeds of the sale herein, which realized $12,500.
We have no jurisdiction over his case.
This is not a suit iu which a fund is proposed to be distributed. It is one in which a matter in dispute, a sum of money, is exactly one thousand dollars.
The proceeds of the sale do not, under and by reason of the opposition, constitute a fund to be distributed by this Court.
The. opponent claims no more than one thousand dollars. He did not arrest and could not have prevented the plaintiff in the exercise of his rights over the surplus of that sum, as the proceeds of the sale, and over which there was no contest, below.
Under the pleadings, the question is simply: Whether the third opponent is or not entitled to be paid one thousand dollars or less.
If this Court could, by its judgment, order the distribution of a sum exceeding one thousand dollars, it could entertain jurisdiction, but under no conceivable contingency, can it order anything more than the payment to the third opponent of exactly one thousand dollars.
The proposition cannot be countenanced, that this Court is vested with jurisdiction over any claim for less than one thousand dollars, when sought to be paid out of the proceeds of a sale exceeding one thousand dollars, when the surplus is not a matter of contest.
The clear object of the Constitution was to clothe this Court with appellate jurisdiction in civil matters, only in such cases in which it could render a judgment directing or denying the payment or distribution of a sum of more than one thousand dollars, or when the matter in dispute exceeds that sum.
The phrase: " The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction when the fund to be distributed, whatever may be the amount therein claimed, shall exceed one thousand dollars, exclusive of interest," Const. Art. 81, cannot be construed so as to apply to a case like the present one, in which the Court cannot direct the distribution of a fund exceeding one thousand dollars.
The circumstances of this case are to be measured, in order to test the question of jurisdiction, by the first part of the Article under consideration, which provides that the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, in civil matters, shall extend to all cases where the matter in dispute shall exceed one thousand dollars. Art. 81, Const.
The claim of the opponent not being for more than one thousand dollars, and there being no fund to be distributed by the Court exceeding one thousand dollars, this Court has no jurisdiction over the case.
It is ordered and decreed, that the appeal herein be dismissed, with costs.