
    (77 South. 117)
    No. 22720.
    DOULLUT et al. v. RUSH et al.
    (Oct. 29, 1917.
    On Application for Rehearing, Dec. 8, 1917.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
    Courts <&wkey;224(11) — Appellate Jurisdiction —Louisiana Supreme Court.
    The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in all eases where the matter in dispute, or the fund to be distributed, whatever may be the amount therein claimed, shall exceed $2,000 exclusive of interest, etc.
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.
    Action by Milton P. Doullut and others against Mary Rush and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. ,
    Case transferred to the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans.
    E. N. Pugh, of Donaldsonville, Lawrence Pugh, of Crowley, and J. C. & Thos. Gilmore and Carroll & Carroll, all of New Orleans, for appellants. É. Howard McCaleb, of New Orleans, for appellees.
   On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

SOMMERVILLE, J.

This suit was orig- • inally for $9,000 for rent due and to become due, under a written contract of lease. Subsequently, plaintiffs discontinued their suit for rent to become due and limited their demand for two months’ rent past due, amounting to $1,000. It appears from another record in the court that plaintiffs instituted a separate proceeding for the possession of the leased property. There was judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants in the sum of $1,000 as prayed for.

The amount involved being less than $2,-000, the case is not within the jurisdiction of this court.

It appears in a decision handed down this day in a suit between the same parties, numbered 22S20 on the docket, 77 South. 116, that the district judge set aside the order for a suspensive appeal in this case. This appeal will have to be disposed of by the court having jurisdiction of the appeal.

It is therefore ordered that this case be transferred to the court of appeal for the parish of Orleans, to be there proceeded with in accordance with law.

On Application for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

We discover that the motion filed in this case, to dismiss the appeal, is based on grounds that are not at all appropriate to this appeal, but are appropriate to the appeal in the case bearing the same title, No. 22721 of the docket of this court. 78 South. -. And we discover, also, that the motion filed in the case No. 22721 is based upon grounds that are not at all appropriate to that case, but are appropriate to the appeal in this case, No. 22720. We assume that the motions were placed in the records to which they were appropriate, respectively, and not in the cases bearing the numbers corresponding with the motions, respectively. Each motion, being appropriate to the case in which it was found, was considered as having been filed in that case, the error in the number given in the indorsement and in the title of each motion being overlooked.

Although the motion to dismiss the appeal in this case — that is, the motion bearing the number 22720 — is based upon grounds that are not at all appropriate to the case and are untenable, we find no reason for changing the decree transferring the case to the court of appeal, because we could and should have transferred the case to the court of appeal on our own motion, on the ground that the amount in contest does not exceed $2,000.

■ The application for rehearing is therefore refused. 
      
       Ante, p. 460.
     
      
       143 La. —.
     