Alessi v. Town of Independence
| Decision Date | 30 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 21921 |
| Citation | 142 La. 338,76 So. 792 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | ALESSI et al. v. TOWN OF INDEPENDENCE |
Rehearing Denied November 26, 1917
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Several plaintiffs, having separate and distinct demands, each for a sum below the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot, by cumulating their demands and bringing only one suit, give this court jurisdiction of the case on appeal, although the sum of all of the demands exceeds $ 2,000, and the right of action of all of the plaintiffs arose from one and the same alleged quasi offense on the part of the defendant.
Where defendant's appeal was due to the cumulation of plaintiffs' demands, ineffective to give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, it would, under Act No. 229 of 1910, impose the costs of the appeal upon the plaintiffs.
Richardson & Kemp, of Independence, for appellant.
Purser & Magruder, of Amite, for appellees.
LECHE, J., takes no part.
O'NIELL, J.
Six landowners, each owning a separate tract in which the others had no interest, brought this suit for damages alleged to have been suffered by them, respectively. The complaint or cause of action is that the defendant diverted the waste water from an artesian well belonging to the municipality into a drainage canal or ditch running through the plaintiff's land, and flooded and injured their crops of strawberries. Each of the plaintiffs prayed for a separate judgment, the amounts varying in proportion to the area of their lands, viz.: George Alessi prayed for judgment for $ 312.50; Dominic Alessi, for $ 312.50; Teodoro Cipresso, for $ 250; Rosario Polinna, for $ 250; Tony Di Maggio, for $ 500; and Mrs. John Sirchia, for $ 625. The plaintiffs prayed jointly that the town be perpetually enjoined and prohibited from permitting the water from the town well to flow into the drainage canal or ditch running through their several properties. They did not ask for a preliminary writ of injunction; nor did they allege what damage might be prevented, or that any amount of loss would be saved, by a judgment enjoining the defendant in the matter complained of.
Before answering, the defendant filed an exception of misjoinder of parties plaintiff. The exception was overruled, and the plaintiff reserved a bill of exceptions to the ruling.
After trial of the case on its merits, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, perpetually enjoining and prohibiting the defendant from permitting the water from the town well to flow into the drainage ditch or canal running through the plaintiff's lands. Judgment was also rendered in favor of each plaintiff for a separate sum of money, 'for damages, actual and punitive,' as follows, viz.: In favor of George Alessi for $ 150; in favor of Dominic Alessi for $ 150; in favor of Teodoro Cipresso for $ 120; in favor of Rosario Polinna for $ 120; and in favor of Mrs. John Sirchia for $ 300. Legal interest was allowed on each judgment from its date. The defendant prosecutes this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant did not argue the exception of misjoinder in this court, either orally or in their brief. They say that they submit the matter without argument or citation of authority. Our consideration of the exception brings up the question of jurisdiction of this court. The question of the plaintiffs' right to cumulate their actions in the district court was not so important to that court as it is with us, because the district court had jurisdiction of the original demands, whether they were cumulated or not; whereas we have not jurisdiction of any of the original demands unless they be regarded as one demand.
The total sum of the six separate judgments, exclusive of interest and costs, is only $ 840; and that includes punitive damages, which cannot be allowed in any civil suit. See Vincent v. M. L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 140 La 1027, 74 So. 541. The plaintiffs have not answered the appeal, or prayed for an increase in the amount of any of the judgments. On the contrary, they virtually admit in their brief that their original demands were inflated. They say that, although they felt that they were damaged to a greater extent than the amounts allowed by the district judge, they have abided by his carefully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bascle v. Perez
...Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co., 30 La.Ann. 609; Southern Timber & Land Co. v. Wartell, 109 La. 453, 33 So. 559; Alessi v. Town of Independence, 142 La. 338, 76 So. 792; State ex rel. Langlois v. Lancaster, 218 La. 1052, 51 So.2d 622; Jackson v. Perkins, 221 La. 525, 59 So.2d 708. The a......
-
State ex rel. Nunez v. Baynard
... ... 923, 42 So. 426; ... Bloch & Levy v. Lambert, 130 La. 977, 58 So. 849; Alessi ... et al. v. Town of Independence, 142 La. 338, 76 So. 792; ... Hotard et al. v. Perilloux, 160 ... ...
-
Jackson v. Perkins
...which can properly be considered by this court in determining whether plaintiff Brown's claim is exaggerated. See Alessi v. Town of Independence, 142 La. 338, 76 So. 792. Under the established jurisprudence of this court it is well settled that, where a plaintiff's claim obviously is exagge......
-
Hernandez v. Ethyl Corp.
...Bldg. & Supply Co., v. Judges, 105 La. 333, 29 So. 892; State ex rel. North v. Ermon, 133 La. 952, 63 So. 479; Alessi v. Town of Independence, 142 La. 338, 76 So. 792; Sheffield v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc., 213 La. 799, 35 So.2d 737; State ex rel. Langlois v. Lancaster, 218 La. 105......