Case Name: Eliza P. Hendricks, Wife, vs. Thompson Wood, Husband. Wood & Roane, Intervenors
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1881-06
Citations: 33 La. Ann. 1051
Docket Number: No. 1020
Parties: Eliza P. Hendricks, Wife, vs. Thompson Wood, Husband. Wood & Roane, Intervenors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 1051–1053

Head Matter:
No. 1020.
Eliza P. Hendricks, Wife, vs. Thompson Wood, Husband. Wood & Roane, Intervenors.
On Motion to Dismiss.
The amount of the claim, and not that which may be proved, is the test of the jurisdiction-of this Court.
Oh the Merits.
In default of proof of the husband’s financial embarrassment, the wife, suing for a separation' of property and recovery of paraphernal rights, should he nonsuited.
APPEAL from the Fifth District Court, parish of Ouachita. Blchardson, J.
Cobb & Gunby for Plaintiff and Appellant:
Hirst — A wife has a claim against her husband for the proceeds of her slaves sold by him before the close of the war.
Second — Confederate money was a good consideration during the existence of the Confederate Government, and where Confederate money belonging to the wife was used by the* husband, she can recover its value in United States currency or gold.
Third — Where the wife's mortgage was recorded after January 1st, 1870, it was not lost, but* took, effect from the date of its record.
Hourtli — It is not necessary, in order to obtain a judgment of separation, to prove that the-husband is insolvent. It suffices to show that his affairs are disordered or embarrassed.
Hifth — Art. 2425 R. C. C. does not embrace all the grounds for which a separation, of property may be sued for and obtained.
Franklin Garrett for Intervenors and Appellees;
Hirst — Plaintiff offered no evidence to establish her allegation that her husband’s affairs were-disordered.
Second — Her tacit mortgage perempted by non-registry before 1st January, 1870.
Third — Although plaintiff demands $2700, it is clearly fictitious, she having offered to prove* only $500 thereof. The Court is without jurisdiction, ratione materice, the matter in dispute not exceeding $1000.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Poché, J.
This is an action for separation of property, in which plaintiff prays for a moneyed judgment against her husband for $2700,. . amount of her paraphernal funds alleged to have been received and converted to his own use by her husband.
Under the pleadings, this case presents an issue involving an .amount clearly within our jurisdiction; the fact that plaintiff may utterly fail, under the evidence, to prove the whole or any part of her -claim, cannot be considered in determining the question of jurisdiction. The amount of the claim, and not the amount which may be proved, affords the test of our jurisdiction.
Appellees' motion to dismiss, resting on the ground that plaintiff's demand is fictitious under the evidence, is untenable, and the motion is, therefore, denied.