Case Name: MILLER v. ALBERT HANSON LUMBER CO., Limited
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1912-01-29
Citations: 130 La. 662
Docket Number: No. 18,530
Parties: MILLER v. ALBERT HANSON LUMBER CO., Limited.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 130
Pages: 661–667

Head Matter:
(58 South. 502.)
No. 18,530.
MILLER v. ALBERT HANSON LUMBER CO., Limited.
(Jan. 29, 1912.
On Rehearing, April 22, 1912.
Further Rehearing Denied May 20, 1912.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Courts (§ 224*) — Appellate Jurisdiction —Amount in Controversy.
The Supreme Court has no appellate jurisdiction in an ordinary case, where the matter in dispute does not exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest. Appeal dismissed, reserving to appellant the right of transfer to the Court of Appeal on making affidavit as required by the statute.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 487, 608-618; Dee. Dig. § 224.*]
On Motion to Dismiss.
2. Courts (§ 224*) — Appellate Jurisdiction —Amount in Controversy.
As the value of the land in dispute determines the jurisdictional amount, this court had jurisdiction of the cause.
[Ed. Note.- — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 487, 608-618; Dec. Dig. § 224.*]
On Plea to the Jurisdiction.
3. Libel and Slander (§ 140*) — Slander op Title — Possession op Plaintiff.
Where one cuts wood and makes staves on land which he claims, and does other acts usually done by an owner, these things are sufficient to constitute possession; and the payment of taxes year after year is evidence of an intention to continue this possession.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent.Dig. §§ 397-401; Dec.Dig. § 140.*]
4. Property (§ 10*) — Possession—Intention —Presumption.
The Civil Code (article 3442) provides that, “when a person has once acquired possession of a thing by corporeal detention of it, the intention he has of possessing it serves to preserve the possession in him although he may have ceased to have the thing in actual custody;” and it further provides (article 3443) that “the intention of retaining possession is always supposed where the contrary intention does not appear.”
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Property, Dec. Dig. § 10.*]
Appeal from Twenty-Third Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary; W. R. Gates, Judge ad hoc.
Action by Mrs. Magdalena Seigfried Miller against the Albert Hanson Lumber Company, Limited. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
L. Octave Pecot and Borah & Himel, for appellant. Emmet Alpha, for appellee.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
This is a jactitation suit. Defendant excepted on the ground of want of possession in the plaintiff; and, the exception having been referred by the court to the merits, defendant, reserving the benefit of the exception, pleaded in the alternative a legal title to the land in controversy.
Plaintiff, as surviving widow of Bernard Miller, and as natural tutrix of the minor children of the marriage, instituted the present suit, alleging' that petitioners were the true and lawful owners and in the actual, physical, open possession of a certain tract of swamp land in the parish of St. Mary, known as lots 1 and 2 of section 36, township 14 S., range 10 E., containing 95.62 acres, of the value of §1,400. Petitioners further alleged that defendant was attempting to disturb their said possession, and was slandering their title to said property, thereby causing damages and injury to the amount of $500 for attorney's fees and loss of time and annoyance in attending court. The prayer of the petitioners was for judgment for $500 as damages, and that the defendant be perpetually enjoined from further slandering their title to said property or disturbing their possession.
There is nothing in the exception or answer of defendant to suggest that the tract in dispute is worth more than $1,400, and it therefore follows that the amount in dispute is $1,900, as shown by the pleadings. Article 85 of the Constitution of 1898, vests the Supreme Court with jurisdiction in ordinary cases where the matter in dispute shall exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest. Hence we-have no jurisdiction of this appeal.
It is therefore ordered that the appeal be-dismissed, reserving to appellant the right to-transfer the case to the Court of Appeal in and for the parish of St. Mary, on making affidavit according to the statute within 10 • days from the date of the finality of this decree, and that the appellant pay costs in this court.