Case Name: In the Matter of the Pelican Saw Mill and Manufacturing Company
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1898-03-21
Citations: 50 La. Ann. 404
Docket Number: No. 12,492
Parties: In the Matter of the Pelican Saw Mill and Manufacturing Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 404–409

Head Matter:
No. 12,492.
In the Matter of the Pelican Saw Mill and Manufacturing Company.
Reiterated that it is the amount of the fund to be distributed, and not that of the claim of the complaining creditor, that determines the jurisdiction of this court. Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
Where creditors, recognized on a receiver's account, are opposed, it is incumbent on such creditors to adduce the proof necessary to substantiate their claims, and failing in this they will be stricken from the account.
After the judgment amending and homologating the account has become final andthefUDds have been disbursed by the receiver pursuant to its mandate, this court, under the facts here presented, will not reverse and remand in order to permit opportunity to complaining creditors to appear and prove their claims.
APPEAL from the Uivil District Court; for the Parish of Orleans. Ellis, J.
Rice & Montgomery and E. L. Richardson for Receiver, Appellee.
Hughes & Famot, Buck, Walshe & Buck, Benjamin Bice Forman and Hugh C. Gage for Opponents and Appellants.
Argued and submitted January 28, 1898.
Opinion handed down March 21, 1898.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Blanchard, J.
The motion to dismiss is made on the ground that the amount claimed by each appellant is below the' appealable jurisdiction of this court.
The provisional account of the receiver proposing to distribute fifteen thousand five hundred and thirty-three dollars and seventy-six cents, and his final account proposing to distribute four thousand one hundred and eighty-nine dollars and seventy-five cents additional, or a total of nineteen thousand seven hundred and twenty-three dollars and fifty-one cents, were tried together, amended and homologated under one judgment.
Representing themselves as creditors of the insolvent concern and averring error in the judgment and injury to themselves, A. M. Edwards, John Stranger and Henry Buddig prosecute this appeal.
It is not the amount of their claim that determines the appellate jurisdiction; it is that of the fund to be distributed. Constitution, Art. 81; Murray vs. Sweeney, 48 La. An. 761; Amendment, Acts 1882, p. 174.
The motion to dismiss is denied.