TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wall v. United Gas Public Service Co.

WALL v. UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. Et Al.

Wall v. United Gas Pub. Serv. Co., 171 So. 497 (La. Ct. App. 1937)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 5, 1937
Docket
No. 5299.
Judges
Drew
Citations
171 So. 497

Opinion of the Court — Drew

DREW, Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this suit to be declared the owner of one-half of all royalties under a certain mineral lease owned by the United Gas Public Service Company, and his ownership thereof is denied by defendants. In article IS of plaintiff’s petition, he alleged that the value of his royalty rights was more than $2,000. This article is denied in toto by defendant.

On trial of the case it developed that there was some production of gas on this lease. There is no evidence in the record to show the value of the royalties sued for by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s demands were rejected below and he has perfected an appeal to this court.

We are not certain that we have jurisdiction of this case. If the value of the royalties claimed by plaintiff is as alleged by him, we have no jurisdiction and a judgment rendered by us would be a nullity. We realize that as a general rule the amount claimed by plaintiff is the test of our appellate jurisdiction, unless it appears that the claim is “padded” for the purpose of giving us jurisdiction. Constitution of 1921, art. 7, § 10; O’Shee v. Chaudoir, 154 La. 517 , 97 So. 796 . But in this case, the value of the royalties ■ claimed by plaintiff and as fixed by him is denied by defendant. It therefore evolves itself into a question of fact on which no evidence was introduced.

In order that we might be sure of our jurisdiction in the case, we deem it advisable to remand it to the lower court for the purpose of taking testimony as to the value of the royalties in dispute; and it is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1938: 11954: 21958: 119382026peak 1954 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Simms v. Lawrence Bros.72 So. 2d 538 (La. Ct. App. 1954)
  2. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Crescent Forwarding & Transportation Co.178 So. 886 (La. Ct. App. 1938)
  3. Greyhound Corp. v. Jefferson Oil Co.104 So. 2d 184 (La. Ct. App. 1958)
  4. Simms v. Lawrence Bros.72 So. 2d 537 (La. Ct. App. 1954)

Most recent

  1. Greyhound Corp. v. Jefferson Oil Co.104 So. 2d 184 (La. Ct. App. 1958)
  2. Simms v. Lawrence Bros.72 So. 2d 538 (La. Ct. App. 1954)
  3. Simms v. Lawrence Bros.72 So. 2d 537 (La. Ct. App. 1954)
  4. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Crescent Forwarding & Transportation Co.178 So. 886 (La. Ct. App. 1938)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
O'Shee v. Chaudoir, 97 So. 796 (La. 1923) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list