
    (80 South. 594)
    No. 21665.
    GREEN v. KETTLER.
    (June 30, 1917.
    On the Merits, Jan. 6, 1919.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
    1. Courts <®=?224(2) — Jurisdiction of Louisiana Supreme Court — Homestead.
    The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends to suits involving homestead exemptions, and the court cannot be deprived of jurisdiction of such a suit by the mere fact that it also involves other questions as to which the amount in contest does not exceed $2,000.
    On the Merits.
    2. Courts <S=»224(1) — Jurisdiction—Transfer of Cause.
    Where a case involving a-claim for homestead exemption, of which this court is vested with exclusive appellate jurisdiction, is brought here by appeal, and, the issue thus presented having been disposed of, it appears that the judgment appealed from involves other matters, with respect to which the appeal should be returned to a Court of Appeal, this court will order the ease transferred to such court, agreeably to the provisions of Act No. 19 of 1912, for the review of the judgment in respect to such other matters.
    
      Appeal from Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Bienville; William C. Barnette, Judge.
    Suit by John H. Green, trustee, against Prank Kettler. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Motion to dismiss appeal overruled, and judgment amended and transferred to Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
    R. L. Williams, of Arcadia, for appellant.
    Sam’l Barksdale, of Parmersville, and Goff & Barnette, of Arcadia, for appellee.
   SOMMERYILLE, J.

The plaintiff sued for possession of eight mules, two log wagons and equipment, and for $500 for the alleged illegal detention of the property. His suit is founded upon a deed of trust executed in Arkansas, to secure the payment of certain promissory notes. The plaintiff prayed that the property be sequestered and delivered to him for the uses and purposes set forth in the deed of trust; that is, to be sold to satisfy the debt, etc.

Among other defenses, the defendant set up a claim to a homestead exemption of two of the mules.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, declaring him to be the owner of the mules, wagons, and equipment, and ordering the property delivered to him to be disposed of under the deed of trust. The defendant prosecutes this appeal. The plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal because the amount involved does not exceed $2,000.

The jurisdiction of this court extends to suits involving homestead exemptions. Const, art. 85. The appellee contends that that issue pertains to only two of the mules, and that, as to the other property, the question is only as to the ownership.

This court certainly has jurisdiction of the case in so far as it involves the question of homestead exemption, and cannot be deprived of jurisdiction of the question merely because there are other issues involved, in which the value or amount in contest does not exceed $2,000. If we had not jurisdiction because the amount in contest does not exceed $2,000, the appeal could not be dismissed, but the case would be transferred to the Court of Appeal. We express no opinion as to whether the case may have to be transferred to the Court of Appeal for a decision of other questions than that of the homestead exemption. If we transferred it now, it would have to come back to this court on the question of the homestead exemption. We will consider the appeal on that question first, and then determine what shall be done with the other issues.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

On the Merits.

MONROE, C. J.

Since the foregoing ruling was made, counsel for plaintiff have filed a motion (a duplicate of which is shown to have been served on counsel for defendant), in which they allege that, in the matter of the bankruptcy of the defendant, pending in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Louisiana, that tribunal has recognized the homestead exemption claimed by defendant; that the judgment has become final, and that the purpose of the appeal to this court has thereby been accomplished. They, therefore, suggest “that further litigation is unnecessary,” and “ask that the judgment of the lower court be amended to allow the defendant homestead exemption of two mules and one wagon.”

We apprehend, however, that, though the jurisdiction of this court quoad the issues to be decided will terminate when the homestead question is disposed of, we shall have the further function to discharge of ordering the appeal transferred to the proper Court of Appeal for the review of the judgment of the District Court in other respects, the plaintiff having been thereby decreed to be the owner of eight mules and eight log wagons, with the chains, equipment, harness, and. saddles, and defendant being entitled to a review of that judgment with respect to the property not included in the homestead exemption. See Act 19 of 1912. It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be so amended as to direct that there be delivered to the defendant, as exempt from plaintiff’s seizure, two mules and one wagon, to be selected by him, free of all costs and charges. It is further ordered that, for the review of the judgment appealed from in other respects, this case be transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. It is further ordered that the costs of the appeal to this court be paid by plaintiff, appellee, and all other costs await the determination of the case.

DAWKINS, J., takes no part,  