
    William Dean v. Daniel Clarke.
    The Supreme Court has not jurisdiction in an appeal from a judgment on a reconventiona! demand for twenty-five dollars, although the amount of the plaintiff's claim be over three hundred dollars.
    Where a notary has received money and notes deposited with him as the price of a sale by the purchaser, he cannot be compelled to return them unless the vendor be made a party to the suit.
    APPEAL by plaintiff from the District Court of the parish of Jefferson, 'Clarke, J.
    This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant, who was a notary, money and notes deposited with him as the price of a slave which the plaintiff had purchased at a sale made to effect a partition between certain heirs, upon the ground that he had in vain demanded a title from the notary, the heirs not having signed the act; and further, that the slave had since died of a redhibitory disease.
    The defendant excepted to the action upon the ground that he was the mere depositary and agent of the parties, and that the heirs of the estate were not made parties. He further claimed in reconvention twenty-five dollars as damages.
    The district judge sustained the exception, and gave judgment in favor of the defendant for the demand in reconvention.
    
      Michel and Burns, for appellant.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

The judgment for twenty-five dollars upon the reconventional demand, does not fall under our jurisdiction.

The reasons of the district judge for sustaining the exception are satisfactory.

It is therefore decreed, that the judgment of the district court sustaining the exception be affirmed; and that so far as concerns the judgment upon the re-conventional demand, the appeal be dismissed; the plaintiff paying the costs of the appeal.  