Case Name: State of Louisiana-On the Relation of Jean Minlocq, v. The Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Charles
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1866-05
Citations: 18 La. Ann. 398
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Louisiana—On the Relation of Jean Minlocq, v. The Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Charles.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 398–398

Head Matter:
State of Louisiana—On the Relation of Jean Minlocq, v. The Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Charles.
The Supreme Gourfc, except in cases hereafter provided, shall have appellate jurisdiction only; which jurisdiction shall extend to all cases when the matter in dispute shall exceed three hundred dollars; to all cases in which the constitutionality or legality of any tax, toll or impost whatsoever, or of any fine, forfeiture or ponalty imposed by a municipal corporation, shall be in contestation; and to all criminal cases on questions of law alone whenever tho offence charged is punishable with death or imprisonment at hard labor, or when a fine exceeding throe hundred dollars is actually impose^
No appeal lies to the Supreme Court where the amount in dispute does not oxceed three hundred dollars. The value of property seized by a Sheriff to pay taxes, the sale of which was enjoined by plaintiff, cannot givo jurisdiction, where the amount of taxes due is less than throe hundred dollars.
APPLYING for a Mandamus.

Opinion:
Hxman, C. J.
The relator, in suit styled Jean Minlocq v. Paul Yancey et al., and E. H. Young, constable, sued to annul several small judgments against Mm, amounting in the aggregate to $244 25, and obtained an injunction restraining their enforcement.
In said suit relator aEeged that the property seized to enforce the payment of the judgments exceeded in value $1,000.
The Judge rendered judgment, dismissing said suit and dissolving the injunction, and the complaint by the relator is that the judge refused to grant him an appeal from the judgment. The matter in dispute is the judgments sued to be annulled. The amount in dispute does not exceed $300. This Court has no jurisdiction of the suit, and can take no cognizance thereof. See 70th Article of the Constitution of 1864.
The property seized is not in dispute, and its value being over $300, cannot invest this Court with jurisdiction, because, in order to release the property from seizure, it would become necessary to decide on the validity of proceedings in a suit over which we have no jurisdiction. See 9 Rob. 7. 12 An. 784. 16 An. 41.
The application for a mandamus is dismissed, at appellant's costs.