Hotard v. Perilloux
| Decision Date | 01 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | 27249 |
| Citation | 160 La. 752,107 So. 515 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOTARD et al. v. PERILLOUX |
Appeal from Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of St John the Baptist; L. Robert Rivarde, Judge.
Suit by Noe Hotard and others against Andre T. Perilloux. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. On motion to dismiss.
Case ordered transferred to Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.
L Walter Cockfield, of New Orleans, for appellants.
C. A Buchler, of Gretna, for appellee.
There are six plaintiffs in this suit, viz.: Noe Hotard, Chas Darensbourg, Ernest Vicknair, John Wilson, Morris Perilloux, and John Hall. Each plaintiff is the owner of a separate tract of land, and the defendant owns land situated immediately in the rear of plaintiffs' properties. The suit is for damages to the plaintiffs resulting from an alleged breach of contract by the defendant to keep open and to properly maintain a certain described ditch or canal which served to drain the plaintiffs' properties. The total sum claimed is $ 2,395.25, and the prayer of the petition is for that sum, to be apportioned in the judgment to the respective plaintiffs as follows: Noe Hotard, Charles Darensbourg, Ernest Vicknair, and John Wilson, $ 450 to each; to Morris Perilloux, $ 300; and to John Hall, $ 250.
Defendant excepted to the petition as not disclosing a cause or right of action. The exception was sustained, the suit dismissed, and plaintiffs appealed from that judgment. Defendant moved this court to dismiss the appeal, and in answer to the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs pray in the alternative that if this court is without jurisdiction the case be transferred to the Court of Appeal.
Section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution of 1921 provides that this court shall have appellate jurisdiction in all civil suits where the amount in dispute, or the fund to be distributed, shall exceed $ 2,000 exclusive of interest, except those for physical injuries or for the death of a person or those brought under the state or federal Workmen's Compensation Law.
This suit cannot be differentiated from the case of Alessi et al. v. Town of Independence, 76 So. 792, 142 La. 338.
In this case the cause of action of each plaintiff grew out of the same alleged quasi offense on the part of the defendant. Each plaintiff has a separate and distinct right of action in which none of his coplaintiffs have the slightest interest. Plaintiffs have cumulated their demands in a single suit against a common defendant, and the sum claimed by each plaintiff is far below our appellate jurisdiction. In the Alessi Case this court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Nunez v. Baynard
...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 La. 752, 107 So. 515; Vogt al. v. Jannarelli et al., 195 La. 277, 196 So. 346. In the case of Vogt et al. v. Jannarelli et al., 195 La. 277,......
-
Jackson v. Perkins
...right of action in which none of his coplaintiffs has the slightest interest. Alessi v. Town of Independence, supra; Hotard v. Perilloux, 160 La. 752, 107 So. 515; State ex rel. Langlois v. Lancaster, 218 La. 1052, 51 So.2d Having concluded that this court is without jurisdiction in each of......
-
Lopez v. Bertel
...as one when the question of jurisdiction is being considered--is, we think, not in conflict with the holding in the Alessi case and in the Perilloux case; that the claims of separate plaintiffs, dependent one upon the other and each involving separate damage, cannot be cumulated when consid......
-
State ex rel. Langlois v. Lancaster, 40150
...right of action or demand against the respondent Lancaster. See Alessi v. Town of Independence, 142 La. 338, 76 So. 792; Hotard v. Perilloux, 160 La. 752, 107 So. 515. Furthermore, the facts alleged by the respondent aldermen and the issues raised by them are not identical with those relati......