Case Name: STAFFORD et al. v. MURRAY
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-01-05
Citations: 152 La. 389
Docket Number: No. 23654
Parties: STAFFORD et al. v. MURRAY.
Judges: By the WHOLE COURT as then constituted.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 389–391

Head Matter:
(93 South. 195)
No. 23654.
STAFFORD et al. v. MURRAY.
(On Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Jan. 5, 1920.
On the Merits, June 22, 1922.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
1. Courts &wkey;>224( 11) — Supreme Court has jurisdiction of possessory action where possession may be worth more than jurisdictional amount.
In a possessory action, -where it may be that, if no one else could show title, defendant’s possession might be equivalent to ownership, and equal in value to the jurisdictional amount, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.
On the Merits.
2. Landlord and tenant <&wkey;l8(3) — Evidence' held to show defendant’s possession was by sufferance and later as tenant.
In a suit to quiet plaintiffs’ possession of land and enjoin defendant from interfering with plaintiffs’ tenant, evidence held to show that defendant’s possession of the land was by sufferance and later as tenant of plaintiffs.
Appeal from Thirteenth Judicial District, Court, Parish of Rapides; James Andrews, Judge.
Suit by J. W. Stafford and others against Charles Murray. From a judgment for plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
R. F. Diebler and John H. Mathews, both of Alexandria, for appellant.
Hakenyos, Hunter & Scott, of Alexandria, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
By the WHOLE COURT as then constituted.
DAWKINS, J.
Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss this appeal upon the grounds that the value of the rights involved is less than the minimum jurisdiction of this court.
This suit was instituted as a possessory action coupled with an injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing upon the property, and from interfering with plaintiff's possession thereof. Defendant answered, denying the possession of plaintiff, averring that he was in possession, and that this possession was worth to-him the sum of $3,500. He also claimed the sum of $1,000 as damages.
The property consists of 43% acres of improved land, and appears to have been rented to the defendant during the year 1918 at $225 per year. However, we cannot decide the question of who was in possession or entitled to the possession, or legally entitled to raise that issue without passing upon the merits. It might well be that, if no one else could show a title which would oust defendant from possession, if he had such as would support a possessory action, such possession might be equivalent to the ownership of the property, and therefore equal to its value, and which might easily exceed the sum of $2,000.
For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss is denied.