Skip to main content
· 6/8/1903

State ex rel. Lewis v. Foster

Citations

  • 111 La. 241
  • 35 So. 536
  • 1903 La. LEXIS 526

Syllabus

<p>COURTS—JURISDICTION—WAY OF NECESSITY-APPEAL—REVIEW—CERTIORARI—JURISDICTION OF COURT OP APPEAL.</p> <p>1. Plaintiff, whose lands ’ are enclaved by those of defendant, sued defendant for a road, and from an adverse judgment appealed to the Court of Appeal, which gave him judgment for the road, and remanded the ease for fixing the amount to be paid to defendant. Defendant then excepted to the jurisdiction of the district court on two grounds: First, that the police jury alone has jurisdiction of the matter of granting a road such as was asked for; and, second, that the amount in dispute was not fixed by either the pleadings or the evidence, and that consequently the Court of Appeal had been without jurisdiction. The district court overruled the exception, and defendant applied .to the Supreme Court for prohibition to the district judge and the plaintiff. Held, first, that while, possibly, there was no law authorizing the courts to grant the demand of the suit, yet that the demand, if sufficient in amount, was one of which the courts have jurisdiction, and that after final judgment it was too late to inquire into whether or not there was any law justifyiug the action of the court, and especially that the judgment of the Court of Appeal could not be reviewed by means of a writ addressed to the district judge; second, that as the matter was one apparently sufficient in amount to confer jurisdiction, and no exception to jurisdiction was filed, the Court of Appeal was justified in entertaining jurisdiction, and that in such a case it is too late after final judgment to inquire into the question of value. .</p> <p>On Rehearing.</p> <p>2. A judgment of nonsuit was rendered against plaintiff in an action which he had brought asking a right of way over defendant’s property. He appealed to the Court of Appeal. That court reversed the judgment below, and gave judgment for the right of way, and remanded the case to the district court for assessment of damages. On the return of

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “These kinds of factual determinations are inappropriate for a Rule 12(b)(6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nioholls, Provosty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.