Hodge v. Monroe Mercantile Co.

Citations

• 105 La. 668

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.</p> <p>J. Whore a motion for appeal asks that the same be made returnable “according to law,” and the judge errs in fixing the return day, and it does not appear that to the appellant is this error imputable, the appeal will not be dismissed.</p> <p>2. A, in execution of a judgment against B, seizes goods of the value of $500 belonging to C. The latter, claiming ownership, enjoined the sale, and in the same action sued for damages exceeding $2000. Held — ’What is at issue is the ownership of the goods, valued at $500, plus the damages claimed, and this court alone has jurisdiction of the case on appeal.</p> <p>8. Since, to recover damages, plaintiff must establish his ownership of the goods, it results that to the court having jurisdiction of the demand for damages must necessarily be committed the power to determine the question of ownership vel non. If the value of the goods exceed $2000 and the amount of damages claimed is less than $2000, the case must be brought here on appeal, and vice versa.</p> <p>4. The appeal here can not be dismissed because of the fact that, concurrently, an appeal in the cause was taken to the Court of Appeals — it not appearing that the appeal had been lodged in the latter court prior to its lodgment here.</p> <p>On the Mbeiis.</p> <p>1. There is no provision of statutory law and no decision of this court which forbid the cumulation of the two causes of action — demand to be decreed owner of personal property seized for the debt of another, and damages for its unlawful seizure.</p> <p>2. Nor is plaintiff’s right to demand damages of the judgment creditor limited to an action on the indemnity bond which the sheriff exacted from the creditor at' the time of the seizure.</p>