Rausch v. Barrere

Citations

• 109 La. 563
• 33 So. 602
• 1902 La. LEXIS 159

Syllabus

<p>APPEAL — WHEN ALLOWED — JURISDICTION OE SUPREME COURT — SHEEP-KILLING DOGS —CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.</p> <p>1. An appeal is a remedy intended for a litigant who complains of error in the judgment of an inferior court which he desires to have corrected in a court of superior and appellate jurisdiction. If he complains of no error which can be so corrected, the appeal should not be allowed.</p> <p>. 2. In a civil case involving the constitutionally of a law or ordinance, where the matter in dispute or the fund to be distributed is less than $2,000, and where neither the constitutionality nor legality of any tax, toll, or impost whatever, or of any fine, forfeiture, or penalty imposed by a municipal corporation, is in contestation, the appellate jurisdiction of this court can be invoked only when the law or ordinance has been adjudged unconstitutional, and to the extent necessary for the review of the judgment so rendered, and a litigant in whose favor such judgment has been rendered, and who makes no complaint thereof upon the question of law, has no right to be heard in this court upon the facts.</p> <p>3. Where, however, an appeal has been granted in such case, and the adverse litigant, against whom the constitutional question has been decided, has answered thereto, complaining of error and asking for its correction, the appellate jurisdiction of the court will be maintained for the purposes of such answer.</p> <p>4. Section 6 of Act No. Ill of 1886, authorizing the recovery, by the owner of a sheep or lamb killed by a dog from the owner of the dog, of ten times the damages sustained, does not deprive the owner of the dog of the equal protection of the law, and is not unconstitutional.</p> <p>5. The judge a quo having found the statute mentioned constitutional in so far as it authorizes the recovery of the value of the sheep or lamb killed, with attorney’s fees and costs, and having determined the amount of the same, and condemned the defendant therefor, the case was,