Falgout v. Johnson

HIGGINS, Justice. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this Court is without jurisdiction ratione materia, alleging that the amount involved is less than $2,000, and the proceeding purely incidental to the execution of a judgment obtained in another case, and prays that we grant a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. The petition and answer herein show that both the plaintiff and the de [825] fendants are claiming the ownership of the tract of land in question and that it is admitted to be worth in excess of $2,-000. The mere fact that one of the alleged links in plaintiff’s alleged title to the land is a judgment in a lesion beyond moiety suit where the value of the property several years ago was fixed at $1,000, does not determine the value of the land at the time this suit was filed nor the nature of this action. The present proceeding is not a mere incident to the execution of the judgment of lesion beyond moiety but an action in which the plaintiff claims the ownership of the property, alleging that the defendants’ alleged right thereto was predicated upon a forged instrument. As the main demand is for recognition of the plaintiff as owner of the property and for possession thereof, and since the property is admittedly worth in excess of $2,000, this Court has jurisdiction ratione materia. Ward v. Lynn, 149 La. 1048, 90 So. 399; American Well & Prospecting Co. v. Lillie Oil Co., 128 La. 660, 55 So. 8; Hardeman Co., Ltd., v. Caddo Concrete Const. Co. et al., 138 La. 107, 70 So. 53, and Stokes v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 173 La. 405, 406, 407, 137 So. 195. In support of his contention that this Court is without jurisdiction, counsel for appellee has called our attention to the following authorities: Smith v. Merchants’ Mutual Ins. Co., 33 La.Ann. 1071, Louisiana Western Lumber Co., Inc., v. Stanford, 178 La. 1052, 152 So. 755, and Lhote & Co. v. Church Extension Soc. of Methodist Episcopal Church et al., 115 La. 487, 39 So. 502. These authorities are not in point for the reason that the plaintiffs in those cases obtained judgments for amounts less than $2,000, and under writs of fieri facias seized property in excess of the value of $2,000, in order to satisfy their judgments: The Court uniformly held that the amount in dispute was the amount of the judgment and not the value of the seized property. We,, therefore, refuse to grant a rule nisi herein and overrule the motion to dismiss the appeal.