The City of Sulphur, Louisiana entered into a contract with Beaumont Construction Company, a partnership composed of Thelma A. Mitchell Simon and Fred Simon, for the construction and laying of certain sanitary sewer lines and water lines throughout various places and parts of the territorial limits of the City of Sulphur.
Plaintiff filed this suit in tort against the said contractors 1 and the City of Sulphur, *455 claiming- damages in the total sum of $4,- course of the construction of the sewer 290 allegedly resulting from and during the project, which he itemized' as follows:
(a) Estimated cost to rebuild and cоver with shell the said private road, and to repair .bridge $1000.00
(b) Estimated cost to re-dig drainage ditches and correct the drainage stoppage above alleged 200.00
(c) Repair to fence in two plaсes caused by cutting as above alleged 30.00
(d) Replace private property road signs destroyеd as above alleged 5.00
(e) Charges' for pulling automobile out of mud due to condition of road 5.00
(f) Damagе and' depredation to grass in yard of petitioner as above alleged 50.00
(g) Inconvenience and аnnoyance caused by being deprived of use of private road for approximately 15 days 250.00
(h) Unlawful invаsion and trespass on private property and rights of petitioner 1000.00
(i) Fees of attorney for bringing and prоsecuting this action 750.00
Total of above damages $4290.00
The district court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff awarding punitive damages for the tresрass in the sum of $250 and compensatory damages to plaintiff’s property in the sum of $692, the amount proved tо be required to rebuild plaintiff’s private road. Defendants timely appealed to the Court of Appеal, First Circuit, which court declined jurisdiction of this case and transferred it to this Court on the ground that the amount in dispute exceeded $2,000.
On examining the record with a view of determining our appellate jurisdiction we take cognizance, ex proprio motu, of the fact that the amount in dispute at the time the case was submittеd to the district court for decision did not exceed the sum of $2,000, notwithstanding the failure of the parties to havе raised this issue in this Court. Maginnis Land & Improvement Co. v. Marcello,
In the recent case of Levy v. AndressHanna, Inc.,
“ ‘In determining the question of jurisdiction this Court is not bound to accept the allegations оf the petition but will look into the record to ascertain the real amount in dispute. Allegations of jurisdictiоnal facts are not the exclusive test of jurisdiction. Wilkins v. Gantt,32 La.Ann. 929 ; Lea v. Orleans,46 La.Ann. 1444 ,16 So. 456 ; Spearing v. Whitney-Central Nat. Bank,129 La. 607 ,56 So. 548 ; Wagner v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.,151 La. 400 ,91 So. 817 .
“ ‘In the case of Nash v. Curette,218 La. 789 ,51 So.2d 71 , 73, with reference to the appellate jurisdiсtion of this Court, we pronounced the following principles: “It is well settled in the jurisprudence of this state that a plaintiff’s allegations as to the amount in dispute will not control in determining the appellate jurisdiction оf this court where the nature of the case, as disclosed by the record, is such that an award in plaintiff’s favor could not exceed our minimum jurisdiction of $2000.00. See Bensel v. Kuhlman,154 La. 150 ,97 So. 347 ; Guidry v. Breaux,158 La. 1002 ,105 So. 43 ; Trahan v. Breaux,212 La. 459 ,32 So. 2d 845 .
“ ‘ “Further, it is well settled that, where the allegations оf damages are evidently exaggerated, they will be disregarded by this court in passing upon the question of jurisdictiоn. Quaglino v. Curren,127 La. 126 ,53 So. 464 ; French v. Trout Creek Lumber Co.,141 La. 18 ,74 So. 575 ; Wagner v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.,151 La. 400 ,91 So. 817 ; Buck v. Latimer,151 La. 883 ,92 So. 372 ; Lo Cicero v. Societa Italiana Di M. B. Christoforo Columbo,151 La. 887 ,92 So. 373 ; Buttner v. Palmisano,152 La. 587 ,93 So. 880 ; Walsh v. Bush,206 La. 303 ,19 So.2d 144 .”
“ ‘In the early case of Wunderlich v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.,143 La. 626 ,79 So. 80 , this court held that, “ * * * where the apрellate jurisdiction depends upon the amount involved, the question of amount will be determined by the circumstаnces disclosed by the records, rather than by the allegations of the litigants * * *. Wilkins v. Gantt,32 La.Ann. 929 ; State ex rel. Police Jury of Livingston Parish v. Miscar,34 La.Ann. 834 ; Buddig v. Baldwin,38 La.Ann. 394 ; Pinckney v. Wolf,41 La.Ann. 306 , (6 So. 27 ) ; Johnson v. Hosmer, 108 La. *459 697,32 So. 961 ; Leury v. Baton Rouge C. Co.,117 La. 956 ,42 So. 439 ; Schlemmer v. Howard, 120 La. (321) 322,45 So. 263 ; Nick v. Bensberg,123 La. 351 ,48 So. 986 ; Weis v. (New Orleans) Board of Trade,125 La. 1010 ,52 So. 130 ; Bloomfield v.Thompson, 133 La. (209) 211,62 So. 634 .” ’ ” [232 La. 562 ,94 So.2d 669 .]
It has long been the settled law in Louisiana that only compensatory damages, and not punitive damages, may be recovered in an action for tort. Spearman v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co.,
In the instant case plaintiff’s claim for compensatоry damages does not exceed $2,000, and there is no evidence in the record affirmatively showing that plaintiff would be entitled to an increase of the award for compensatory damages made by the trial court such as would cause the amount in dispute to be in excess of $2,000, and thereby vest jurisdiction in this Court. La.Const.1921, Art. VII, Seс. 10, LSA. The record is barren of evidence to show any difference in the value of the property befоre and after the construction of the sewer system in order to establish the value of alleged damages to the property resulting therefrom.
The record does not disclose any basis for plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fee. On numerous occasions this Court has said that ordinarily attorney’s fees are not accessible as an item of damages unless provided for by law or by contract. The clear import of the language of the opinions is that no award of attorney’s fees can be made if not so particularly authorized. Winkler v. Ascension Bank & Trust Co.,
Under the circumstances and facts of this case and the law of this State, we think it clear that the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, erred in holding that it did not have jurisdiction of the appeal herein.
Aсcordingly, for the reasons assigned, it is ordered that this appeal be retransferred to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, pursuant to the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:4441-13:4442, the record to be filed in that court by appellant within thirty days from thе date on which this decree shall become final; otherwise, the appeal shall stand dismissed. Appеllant is to pay the costs incurred in this Court, the taxation of all other costs is to be deferred until final disposition of the case.
Notes
. On motion of plaintiff the suit against the said contractors was dismissed with prejudice.