Case Name: Chas. E. Alter vs. Joseph O'Brien. Francis Johnson, Third Opponent
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1879-04
Citations: 31 La. 452
Docket Number: No. 7170
Parties: Chas. E. Alter vs. Joseph O’Brien. Francis Johnson, Third Opponent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 452–456

Head Matter:
No. 7170.
Chas. E. Alter vs. Joseph O’Brien. Francis Johnson, Third Opponent.
An appeal will lie from a judgment on an intervention on. third opposition claiming less'than the appealable amount, when the demand of the plaintiff is for an appealable amount.
The funeral expenses of a debtor, or of his wife and children, operate as a privilege on the real estate of the community, when thero is no other source from which those expenses can be paid, and this privilege ranks any mortgage on such real estate.
When a mortgage creditor proceeds in a court of ordinary jurisdiction to enforce his mortgage on property owned by the community which had existed between the debtor and his deceased wife, a creditor with a privilege on the mortgaged property on account of the funeral expenses of the deceased wife is entitled to come in and claim his lien on the proceeds of the property, and a representative of the succession of the wife is not a necessary party to the proceeding.
^PPEAL from the Fifth District Court, parish of Orleans. Rogers,
Geo. L. Bright for plaintiff and appellant.
James Timony for opponent and appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Mare, J.
Alter, mortgagee, obtained an order of seizure and sale against O'Brien, the mortgagor; and the mortgaged property was adjudicated to him for $8000. Johnson took a rule on Alter and the sheriff, in the nature of a third opposition, claiming out of the price of the sale $350. There was judgment in his favor for $131; and Alter appealed. Johnson moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the amount in controversy is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction.
In Picard & Weil vs. Wade, we reviewed the jurisprudence pertinent to this question, and held that it was established, beyond controversy, "that an appeal will lie from a judgment on an intervention or third opposition claiming less than the appealable amount, where the demand of plaintiff is for an appealable amount." 30 An. 625.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.