Knox v. Palermo

• Decision Date: 06 December 1965
• Docket Number: No. 1989,1989
• Citation: 180 So.2d 750
• Parties: Julia KNOX, feme sole, Lillie Bell Williams, wife of Henry Clarence Williams, Ethel Joseph, wife of John Joseph v. Melvia BILBE, wife of, and Joseph A. PALERMO.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 750

180 So.2d 750

Julia KNOX, feme sole, Lillie Bell Williams, wife of Henry Clarence Williams, Ethel Joseph, wife of John Joseph v. Melvia BILBE, wife of, and Joseph A. PALERMO.

No. 1989.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 6, 1965.

Joseph S. Russo, for plaintiffs-appellants .

Melvin J. Duran, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before SAMUEL, HALL and BARNETTE, JJ.

SAMUEL, Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment of the First City Court for the City of New Orleans maintaining an exception to the jurisdiction of that court over the subject matter and dismissing plaintiffs' suit.

The three plaintiffs joined in the one suit. The petition alleges they were tenants of separate apartments in premises located in the City of New Orleans; the two defendants were the owners and lessors of the premises; and the defendants, without prior notice to plaintiffs, wrongfully evicted the latter from the premises and commenced to demolish the buildings. Each plaintiff prays for damages in the amount of $500 so that the total aggregate amount sought by all three plaintiffs is $1,500.

Article 7, Section 91 of our Constitution (LSA-Const. Art. 7, § 91) provides in pertinent part that the First City Court for the City of New Orleans '* * * has concurrent jurisdiction with the civil district court for the parish of Orleans in all cases except divorce, alimony, titles to real estate and probate matters, when the amount in dispute or fund to be distributed exceeds one hundred dollars but Does not exceed one thousand dollars, exclusive of interest, attorney fees, and penalties, * * *' (emphasis ours). Thus the sole question before us is whether the jurisdictional amount of plaintiffs' suit is the aggregate of the cumulated demands, in which case the amount would be $1,500 and beyond the jurisdictional limit set by the constitution, or the amount of the claim of each plaintiff, $500, which is within the jurisdiction of the First City Court.

Our jurisprudence, all prior to the adoption of the present Code of Civil Procedure, is confusing. Among the numerous cases can be found some holding that the jurisdictional amount of a suit in which several actions are cumulated in the same suit is the aggregate of the cumulated actions, while some apply the contrary rule. See Comment (b) under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 462. We believe the correct conclusion under the jurisprudence referred to is that when the claims of separate plaintiffs were cumulated in one suit and those claims were not dependent upon the other and each involving separate damage (i.e., where each plaintiff had a separate and distinct right of action in which his co-plaintiffs had no interest other than for purposes of joinder as parties plaintiff), as is the case here, the jurisdictional amount involved was not the aggregate of the cumulated claims; it was the amount of the claim of each plaintiff. Parker v. T. Smith & Son, 222 La. 1061, 64 So.2d 432; State ex rel. Langlois v. Lancaster, 218 La. 1052, 51 So.2d 622; Hotard v. Perilloux, 160 La. 752, 107 So. 515; Alessi v. Town of Independence, 142 La. 338, 76 So. 792; Lopez v. Bertel,...