Case Name: GIBBS v. ATKINS, Mayor, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1903-05-11
Citations: 110 La. 197
Docket Number: No. 14,587
Parties: GIBBS v. ATKINS, Mayor, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 198–198

Head Matter:
(34 South. 411.)
No. 14,587.
GIBBS v. ATKINS, Mayor, et al.
(May 11, 1903.)
APPEAL — JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.
1. In a case involving the enforcement of a town ordinance, where the amount in dispute is below the lower limit of the jurisdiction of this court, the appeal will be dismissed, when •.the judgment appealed from was based on the facts of the case, and not on the unconstitutionality or illegality of the ordinance in question.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Seventh Justice’s Court, Parish of Sabine; John Graham, Judge.
Action by L. V. Gibbs against W. B. Atkins, mayor, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Dismissed.
Armstrong & Good, for appellants. L. Y. Gibbs, in pro. per.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
Some hogs were impounded, and the owner brought suit before the magistrate against the mayor and the town marshal for their release. The magistrate thought the impounding proceedings were irregular, and ordered the hogs released. It seems that the town marshal had. delegated the powers confided to him by the town ordinance for the impounding of hogs to two little boys, which the magistrate considered to be irregular — these powers having been confided to the officer to be exercised by himself in person, and not by deputy; also that the hogs were inoffensive, unsuspecting country porkers, which these youthful myrmidons of the town marshal had enticed or invited into the town by spreading their path with corn, which the magistrate considered to be unwarranted. The magistrate's reasons for judgment are in the record. They show that the judgment was based exclusively upon the above considerations, and not upon the illegality or unconstitutionality of the ordinance under which the impounding took place. Our attention is called to this fact, and to our not having jurisdiction of the case. Inasmuch as this court could have had jurisdiction of the case only if the illegality or unconstitutionality of the ordinance in question had been involved, it is evident we must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.