
    No. 8529.
    Mrs. C. Young vs. Rowley Wilson et als.
    The allegation in defendant’s answer and claim in reconvention, that the value of the possession of the land sued for, is §1500, is sufficient to show that this Court has jurisdiction of the case.
    The evidence shows that plaintiff has had actual possession of the laud for more than a year, and was evioted within a year prior to the institution of the suit: it is all that the possessory action requires.
    APPEAL from the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Concordia. Hough, J.
    
      Boatner & Mason, for Plaintiff and Appellee:
    The Supreme Court lias no jurisdiction of a possessory action, in which the value of the possession is neither alleged or proved to exceed the sum of one thousand dollars. 22 A. 272.
    Jurisdiction is fixed by the pleadings and the evidence, and where the evidence in the record shows that this Court has no jurisdiction, ex-partc affidavits filed after appeal is perfected are not permissible to contradict or vary the evidence so as to ohange or show that it has.
    On the Merits.
    In a possessory action the possession of the executor, during his administration, is the'possession of the heirs, and will entitle them, after a partition, to maintain the action. 5 A. 689, 643.
    The civil possession of the vendee, together with the actual and real possession of the vendor, will suffice to maintain the possessory action, when brought within one year of the vendor's actual and real possession, and before an adverse possession has been acquired. 13 L, 237; 19 L. 241; 10 A. 518.
    
      Geo. 8. Saioyer aud York c6 Young, for Defendants and Appellants:
    1. The premises in dispute did not belong to Fletcher, or the Fletcher Place. Plaintiff had no right, or title, orpossession. She cannot maintain a possessory action. C. P. Art. 49 ; 7 La. 415 ; 13 An. 573 ; 4 An. 515.
    2. She should have ordered a survey, and admitted the deeds offered to prove the locus in quo and the extent of the Fletcher Place, and of possession of the plaintiff. 9 M., bottom of page 79 ; 19 La. 256; 7 An. 578; 15 La. 451; 6 An 66 ; 19 La. 484.
    3. The possession of the disputed premises by Fletcher, plaintiff’s vendor, was a tortious possession; he could nob convey any right to the same to his vendee. Ex “ turpi causa,” etc.
    4. The plaintiff, not having actual possession at the time, or prior to the alleged disturbance, his action must fail.
    5. The amount involved in this suit exceeds in value the sum of one thousand dollars.
   On Motion to Dismiss.

Tlio opinion of the Court was delivered by

Levy, J.

Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal, for the reason that this Court is without jurisdiction, rations mateiiw, the amount in dispute not exceeding one thousand dollars.

The suit is a possessory action, in which plaintiff seeks'to be restored to the possession of a certain tract of land, of which he has been disturbed and evicted by defendant, and further claims damages in the sum of two hundred and thirty dollars, and one hundred and eighty dollars for rent, and fifty dollars for attorney’s fees, amounting in the aggregate to four hundred and sixty dollars.

In his answer, defendant claims in reconvoution as damages, nine hundred dollars, as follows: In the threatening by plaintiff to take possession of his stock and crops, in $150; in $250 attorney’s fees in defending this suit, and $500 exemplary damages for slander of title and annoyance and trouble attendant upon tho institution of the suit. He further alleges that the possession of the laud is worth fifteen hundred dollars.

Defendant’s right to recover on this reconventional demand must be governed by the prayer for damages made in his answer. Tho amount of damages claimed by him, and the causes giving rise thereto, are specifically set forth and cannot be supplemented by more allegations of the value of the land; but there is an allegation that tho value of the possession is $1,500, and, therefore, the case is within our jurisdiction on appeal.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

On the Merits.

Levy, J.

This is purely and simply a possessory action. The evidence shows that the plaintiff had the actual possession of the land for more than a year prior to the alleged eviction, in herself, and through her vendor and agent, and was disturbed and evicted in her possession within a year prior to the institution of the suit. The requirements of the law which justified a resort to this action, areTulfillod, and the proof sustains the judgment of the lower court.

The title to the land was not, and could not bo inquired into in this action.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed at costs of appellant in both Courts.  