Opinion
No. 8945.
December 19, 1958. Rehearing Denied February 2, 1959.
Suit for recovery of balance due on open account or on contract of purchase. The Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, Walter M. Hunter, J., entered judgment sustaining defendant's plea of prescription and dismissing plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal, Hardy, J., held that where plaintiff prayed for judgment in the sum of $100 with legal interest and costs, the amount was insufficient to confer jurisdiction of the appeal upon the Court of Appeal, notwithstanding that plaintiff's petition alleged sale of materials of value of $101.14.
Appeal dismissed.
William Ray Bradford, Alexandria, for appellant.
Bernard Kramer, Alexandria, for appellee.
This is a suit for the recovery of a balance due on open account, or on a contract of purchase, and plaintiff has appealed from a judgment sustaining defendant's plea of prescription and dismissing plaintiff's suit.
[1,2] Reference to plaintiff's petition discloses that, despite an allegation of the sale of materials of a value of $101.14, plaintiff prayed for judgment in the sum of $100 with legal interest and costs, which amount does not confer jurisdiction of this appeal upon this court.
This question has been very recently considered by this court, in Barber v. Hardwick, 107 So.2d 725, in which the law governing appellate jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeal was set forth in minute detail, as reflected by the opinion of Judge Gladney.
It is clear that this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, which fact must be noticed, ex proprio motu. Accordingly, It Is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the appeal be and it is hereby dismissed at appellant's cost.