59 So. 2d 398 | La. Ct. App. | 1952
Lead Opinion
This is a demand for damages for the alleged killing of four (4) hogs by Robert Vercher, minor son of Freeman Vercher and Van McGraw, minor son of Cecil Mc-Graw. The demand is for $50.00 each for the hogs, a total of $200.00, alleged to be the1 value of the hogs, and $300.00 punitive damage.
The defendants are Freeman Vercher and Cecil McGraw, the fathers of the two boys. It is alleged that the boys were acting .according to instructions of the fathers, but, if not so acting, the fathers are liable under the provisions of Articles 237 and 2315, R.C.C.
Defendants deny the allegations of the petition and in reconvention pray for judgment against plaintiff for $100.00, alleging that the four hogs, mentioned in plaintiff’s petition, had eaten pecans' to that value. They say that they had inquired as to ownership of these hogs, which were destroying their crops and that plaintiff did ■ not, at that time, claim ownership of the hogs. They also claim their lands were. well fenced, until the hogs broke the fences, to the knowledge of plaintiff.
After trial March 2, 1951, the District Court, in an oral opinion, rejected the plaintiff’s demands and also the reconven-tional demand. March 3, 1951, plaintiff filed a request that the Court reduce the oral opinion to writing, and this request was complied with. On the same day, plaintiff moved for a rehearing and for judgment as prayed for. This motion was ■argued and submitted on March 22, 1951. The minutes do not so show, but, oh May 3, 1951, judgment was signed and filed' in favor of plaintiff for $30.00 with interest and costs. On May 7, 1951, defendants filed a motion for a rehearing, alleging that the judgment is erroneous and contrary to the law and the evidence; that the judgment was signed in the afternoon and not at motion hour, contrary to law and the rules of court, and that the Court failed to pass on the reconventional demand, although it was allowed in the original judgment rendered. On May 9, 1951, plaintiff filed written objection to the motion for rehearing because one motion for rehearing had been applied for and granted. None of these proceedings are reflected by the minutes of Court, the next entry showing the motion for a rehearing was denied on June 26, 1951, and finally on June 28, 1951, the minutes of Court show motion and order for appeal by defendants. Plaintiff did not appeal.
October 16, 1951, plaintiff answered the appeal setting up that the judgment insofar as it does not allow the full amount sued for, is incorrect, and should be increased to the sum demanded, $500.00, and otherwise affirmed.
The testimony was not reported, but, according to the briefs, the parties agreed to accept the facts, as set forth in the written opinion of Judge Stephens. The judge found that the hogs weighed 75 to 80 pounds each, and were worth 16 to 20 cents per pound, and, striking an average, he found the value of each hog to be $13.95. Only three of the hogs were found dead, and' he fixed their value at $41.85 for all three. If all four were killed, their total value would be $55.80. He found the proof on the reconventional demand as to amount of pecans eaten by the hogs to be indefinite, but concluded they had possibly eaten 150 pounds, worth 28 cents per pound, a total
We believe that we ’ are without jurisdiction of this appeal. Only the defendants appealed. The testimony was not reported and we must accept the findings of the District Judge on the facts. He has found the value of the pecans to be not more than $42.00, and this, if added to $30.00, makes a total of. $72.00 in contest, or, if the value of the hogs be $55.80, the amount in contest is $97.80, unless the demand for punitive damage of $300.00 be considered, and we are of the opinion that punitive damage cannot be recovered in this case. R.C.C. art. 1934 and cases cited in Dart’s Second Edition; 1 La.Law Review 226 and cases cited. Although the answer to the appeal prays that the -judgment be increased to $500.00, the sum sued for, counsel, in brief, claims only $55.80 as the value of the hogs.
For the reasons herein given, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, at the cost of defendants, appellants, in both courts.
Rehearing
On Rehearing.
After dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction ratione materiae, this court granted a rehearing upon appellants’ insistence that we should entertain the appeal. In their, application for a rehearing they assert that inasmuch as their recon-ventional demand equaled the sum of $100, the pronouncement of the Supreme • Court in Cardino v. Scroggins, 1938, 190 La. 53, 181 So. 810, is applicable.
It was held in our original decree that this court had no jurisdiction of the controversy between appellee and appellants, due to our finding that at the time the case was submitted to the District Court for decision neither the main demand nor the re-conventional demand actually involved a disputed sum in excess of $100. Plaintiff’s demand included an item of punitive damages that is clearly without legal merit, as was pointed out in our original decree. When this item is eliminated, the brief of appellee in this court reflects a claim of only $55.80. In appellants’ 'brief this court is asked to render judgment in their favor- upon their reconventional demand for the sum of $50. It is well settled that our appellate jurisdiction in a money case is to be tested by the amount in dispute at the time the judgment is rendered in the -court of original jurisdiction. See: State v. Cook, 1941, 197 La. 1027, 3 So.2d 114, and the numerous authorities cited therein. See also: Walker v. Fitzgerald, 1948, 214 La. 293, 37 So.2d 712. It is the real and not fictitious, inflated or exaggerated amounts of the demands for damages that determine the jurisdiction of the court of appeal. See: Cailleteau v. Bordelon, La.App.1949, 39 So.2d 117. Manifestly, the two demands as expressed in the pleadings were inflated. This court does not have jurisdiction where the amount in dispute does not exceed $100. See Article VII, Section 29, Louisiana Constitution of 1921. See.also: Lawson v. Most Worshipful Eureka Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons, La.App.1937, 171 So. 480; Ellsworth v. John Fort News Stand, La.App.1950, 46 So.2d 667.
The case of Cardino v. Scroggins, supra, is inapposite as in that case the actual sum in dispute was the $120 claimed by the defendant in reconvention.
Our original decree is, therefore, correct and is hereby reinstated and made the judgment of this court. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellants are cast with the costs of both courts.
