TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williamson v. Ruston Steam Laundry, Inc.

Williamson v. Ruston Steam Laundry, Inc., 134 So. 720 (La. Ct. App. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 20, 1931
Docket
No. 3981
Judges
Drew
Citations
134 So. 72017 La. App. 1411931 La. App. LEXIS 696

Opinion of the Court — Drew

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

DREW, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages alleged to have been caused him by a collision with defendant’s car. He itemizes the damage as being $89.29 for repairing’ his car, and $25 for loss of use of the car while same was being repaired. He recovered judgment in the lower court for the repair " bill, amounting to $89.29, and defendants have appealed.

The only proof offered by plaintiff and his witnesses as to the amount of damage is that the repair bill on his car was $89.29, less $3.50 for a windshield that had been previously broken, and the loss of use of the car for two days. Plaintiff placed his loss on this account at from $4 to $5 per day. It is clear that the amount in dispute is less than $100, and this court has no jurisdiction of the case.

It has been repeatedly held that, whenever the matter in dispute appears to be really under the lower limit of the jurisdiction of this court, though from the averments. and prayer of petition it is represented as exceeding the same, the claim will be treated as not serious and as fictitious and garbed solely to bring it within appellate jurisdiction, and the appeal' will be dismissed ex proprio motu. Bright v. Thompson, 38 La. Ann. 801 ; Pinckney v. Wolf, 41 La. Ann. 306 , 6 So. 27 ; and Lea v. C. A. Orleans, 46 La. Ann. 1444 , 16 So. 456 .

Nowhere in the record, other than in the petition, does the plaintiff claim damages in the amount of $100. This court clearly has no jurisdiction, and it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal be dismissed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1933: 31948: 11954: 219332026peak 1933 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Simms v. Lawrence Bros.72 So. 2d 538 (La. Ct. App. 1954)
  2. Southland Inv. Co. v. Michel150 So. 581 (La. Ct. App. 1933)
  3. Southern Furniture Co. v. Mead146 So. 341 (La. Ct. App. 1933)
  4. Semore v. Southern Life & Health Ins. Co.147 So. 80 (La. Ct. App. 1933)
  5. Deichman v. Selle34 So. 2d 427 (La. Ct. App. 1948)
  6. Simms v. Lawrence Bros.72 So. 2d 537 (La. Ct. App. 1954)

Most recent

  1. Simms v. Lawrence Bros.72 So. 2d 538 (La. Ct. App. 1954)
  2. Simms v. Lawrence Bros.72 So. 2d 537 (La. Ct. App. 1954)
  3. Deichman v. Selle34 So. 2d 427 (La. Ct. App. 1948)
  4. Southland Inv. Co. v. Michel150 So. 581 (La. Ct. App. 1933)
  5. Semore v. Southern Life & Health Ins. Co.147 So. 80 (La. Ct. App. 1933)
  6. Southern Furniture Co. v. Mead146 So. 341 (La. Ct. App. 1933)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Lea v. Orleans, 46 La. Ann. 1444 (1894) 18
Pinckney v. Wolf, 41 La. Ann. 306 (1889) 10
Bright v. Thompson, 38 La. Ann. 801 (1886) 6

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