
    No. 6014.
    IN RE. LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF LOUISIANA.
    On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
    Syllabus.
    This Court on appeal having rendered a final decree amending the judgment appealed from at the cost of the appellee, has jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment subsequently rendered' by’the trial Court- on- a rule'to fix or tax the costs under said decree.
    Appeal from the Civil District Court, for the Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 99,284. Hon F. D. King, 'Judge.
    Theo. Cotonio, for plaintiff and appellant.
    Smart & Patorno, for defendant and appellee.
   His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

When this cause was before us on a prior appeal, Nos. 5738 and 5739 of our docket (10 Ct. of App., 180), we rendered a final decree amending one of the judgments appealed from ‘ ‘ at the cost -of appellee. ’ ’ Upon the filing of this decree below, the then appellant took a rule to tax or fix the costs i-n accordance therewith; and a judgment taxing these costs at $25.00 having been rendered, the defendant in rule, the Land Development Company, now appeals.

Opinion and decree, December 22nd, 1913.

Syllabus.

Involves only a matter of costs.

A motion is now made- to dismiss this appeal on the ground that “the judgment appealed from is for . an amount below the minimum amount over which this Court has appellate jurisdiction. ”

There is no merit in this motion; for as this is an appeal from a judgment taxing costs under our prior decree, this Court is vested with jurisdiction in the premises regardless of the amount in dispute. '

State ex rel. Johnson vs. Judges, 107 La., 69; Globe Realty Co., vs. Vix, 120 La., 95.

The motion to dismiss is accordingly overruled.

The motion to dismiss overruled.

On the Merits.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

1 This appeal involves only a matter of costs. The trial Judge allowed $25,00, being $28.00 to which mover (ap.pellee) was entitled, less $3.00 due to respondent (appellant).

It is possible that appellant was actually entitled to an additional credit for some testimony which was overlooked; but if so, the amount ($1.00) is too inconsiderable to warrant an amendment and the taxing of the costs of appeal to appellee. De minimus non curate lex.

Opinion and decree, February 25th, 1914,

Rehearing refused, March 23, 1914.

■ The main point at issue (but for whieh this appeal would doubtless not have been taken) is whether or not the Clerk of this Court was entitled to charge two-fees for two appeals taken by separate motions and from separate judgment, though in the same proceedings; and we have not the slightest hesitation in holding that the Clerk was entitled to make the charges which he did.

Judgment affirmed.  