Case Name: H. Peychaud, Liquidator, v. Arnold Weber
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1873-02
Citations: 25 La. Ann. 133
Docket Number: No. 2753
Parties: H. Peychaud, Liquidator, v. Arnold Weber.
Judges: Justices concurring : Ludeling, Taliaferro, Howe.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 133–136

Head Matter:
No. 2753.
H. Peychaud, Liquidator, v. Arnold Weber.
On a motion to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the matter in dispute does not exceed five hundred dollars, the amount of defendant’s liabilities on a stock note as stockholder in a company will determine the jurisdiction of the court and not the percentage claimed thereon. It must be first ascertained if he is liable on the stock note itself, as alleged in the petition.
"When the object of a suit is to provide the means of paying the debts of a company, it is unnecessary to decide on an exception to the jurisdiction, whether the State courts can settle the affairs of an insolvent corporation.
A. stockholder can not, when sued, call into question the name borne by a company and mentioned in his stock note at the time it was given, and it rests with him to show that the contribution called for is not needed.
APPEAL from tlie Fourth District Court, parish of Orleans. IMard,J.
A. & P. Robert, for plaintiff and appellee. M. Grivot, for defendant and appellant.
On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
Justices concurring : Ludeling, Taliaferro, Howe.

Opinion:
Ludeling, C. J.
The appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the matter in dispute does not exceed five hundred dollars.
The plaintiff sued defendant to make him contribute twenty per centum on his stock note, which plaintiff avers defendant executed in favor of the Great Southern and Western Life Accident Marine and Fire Insurance Company for $800.
The defendant denied any indebtedness to the plaintiff. It seems . clear that before decreeing the defendant to pay the twenty per oentum demanded now, it must be ascertained whether he is liable as a stockholder to the extent of $800, as alleged in the petition. The matter in dispute then exceeds five hundred dollars. 2 An. 909, Williams v. Vance; .15 An. 521, N. S; and T. R. R. Co. v. Hamilton. Article 74 Constitution.
It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss be overruled.