Case Name: J. Routier v. D. Hughes et al-Louis R. Sassinot, Intervenor
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1884
Citations: 2 McGl. 99
Docket Number: No. 171
Parties: J. Routier v. D. Hughes et al—Louis R. Sassinot, Intervenor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the various Courts of Appeal of the state of Louisiana (McGloin)
Volume: 2
Pages: 99–101

Head Matter:
No. 171.
J. Routier v. D. Hughes et al—Louis R. Sassinot, Intervenor.
1. Where suit is brought for $611.00 and au intervenor appears, elaiming $388.00 thereof, and the final judgment is against defendant for the full sum originally claimed, $388.00 thereof in favor of intervenor, and the remainder in favor of the plaintiff; held, that, upon the appeal of defendant, the controversy must he considered as one involving the sum of $611.00, and hence, appealable to this Court on questions of fact, as well as law.
2. The provisions of La Rev. Statutes, Sections 2879, 2880, 2881, 2883, 2884, and of La. Civil Code, Arts. 2270, 2272, 2274, all popularly known as the mechanic’s lien laws, are express and exceptional, and they must he restricted to cases coming clearly within their provisions.
3. These provisions of law apply only, to cases where work is being done, by con*' tract, /or the owner or proprietor.
4v They cannot, therefore, be held to apply where the party, at whoso charge the work is being done, is a mere lesseet and not the owner or proprietor.
Appeal from, the Civil District Court, Division A. Tissot, J.
Albert Voorhies for Sassinot, intervenor, appellant.
Braughn, Buck & Dinkelspiel for defendants.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
McGloin, J.
Plaintiff sued defendants in solido for $611.00, with interest. L. R. Sassinot intervened, claiming that of this sum $388.71 should be adjudged in his favor. There was judgment in favor of Sassinot for the amount of his claim, and in favor of plaintiff for $222.29. Defendants, Hughes & Co., have appealed. The intervenor demands a dismissal as to himself on the ground that his demand is for less than $500.00, and hence appealable only on questions of law, and that there is neither assignment of error, bill of exceptions or statements of facts. The cause was tried below as one appealable upon questions of law and facts, and the testimony, etc., was taken in writing and is in the record.
It may be true that where a cause is appealable alone on questions of law, the mere presence in the record of the testimony reduced to writing does not do away with the necessity of the statement of facts as required by law and the rules of this Court; but we do not see the application of this principle. The character of the cause,-in the connection under consideration, is determined by the amount claimed in plaintiff's petition, and if fully appeal-able as to him, it is equally so as to and against the intervenor, even though the latter claims less than five hundred dollars. The case comes clearly within the scope of the following authorities: Hart vs. Ludvick, 8 La. 167; Buckner et al. vs. Baker et al., 11 La. 462; Colt vs. O'Callahan, 2 La. An. 189; Haughery vs. Thiberge et al., 24 La. An. 442: Picard vs. Weil & Wade, 30 La. An. 625; Alter vs. O'Brien, 31 La. An. 452.
The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.