Case Name: The Citizens Bank of Louisiana v. William Brothers
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1845-06
Citations: 11 Rob. 217
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Citizens Bank of Louisiana v. William Brothers.
Judges: 
Reporter: Robinson
Volume: 11
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
The Citizens Bank of Louisiana v. William Brothers.
No appeal -will lie from, a judgment ou an opposition by a third person, claiming to be paid by preference to the mortgage creditor out of the proceeds of property sold under an order of seizure and sale, where the amount claimed by the opponent is only three hundred dollars, though the claim for which the order of seizure and sale was issued exceeded that amount.
Appeal from the Parish Court of New Orleans, Maurian, J.
Pitot and Denis, for the appellants.
Lockett and Micou, contra.

Opinion:
Martin, J.
The bank is appellant from a judgment which sustains the claim of Dr. Kennedy to three hundred dollars, for professional services to its deceased mortgage debtor, in his last illness, out of the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged premises in the hands of the sheriff. ,
The bank complains of the judgment as a violation of their charter, which authorizes them to proceed to the sale of property mortgaged to it, notwithstanding any alienation thereof, or .change of possession by succession, or descent to heirs, or legatees by last will and testament, or otherwise, in the same manner as if the same was in possession of the original mortgagor.
The appellee has prayed for the dismissal of the appeal, on the ground that the amount involved in his claim does not exceed three hundred dollars, and that a third opposition is a distinct suit. This is resisted by the appellants, who sho.w that their claim exceeds considerably the sum of three hundred dollars, all of which they might lose if there were a number of third oppositions of three hundred dollars each, the aggregate amount of which would exceed its demand.
The judgment being for three hundred dollars only, and not more than that sum having been demanded, we are of opinion that we have not jurisdiction of the case.
Appeal dismissed,