
    No. 5322.
    John Ternoir vs. Daniel Weaver et al.
    A suit, the sole object of which is to restrain disturbance in the enjoyment of real property, the value neither of the property nor of the possession being alleged, is not within the jurisdiction of this court, and will be dismissed ex proprio motu.
    
    Appeal from the Superior District Court of New Orleans. Hawkins, J.
    
      Bartlette for Plaintiff and Appellant. E. Bermudez and Sabourin for Defendants and Appellees.
   De Blanc, J.

In this case, according to plaintiff’s argument, the object in dispute is the possession, and according to defendant, the ownership, of a tract of land. Whatever may be that object, its value is not alleged, nor proven by any document in the record, not shewn by any affidavit, to be over five hundred dollars.

The appeal is dismissed.

On application for rehearing.

Marr, J.

Plaintiff styling himself sole heir of his grandmother, Marie St. Jean, brought this suit to restrain defendants from disturbing him in the possession and enjoyment of certain real property. He prays simply for an injunction to prevent this apprehended injury.

The title to this property was involved in a suit in the Second District Court in which ten persons, plaintiff-being one, all claiming to be heirs of the same grandmother, Marie St. Jean, brought suit against the city of New Orleans. Final judgment was rendered against them in favor of the city in 1870. Bare v. City of New Orleans, 22 Ann. 612.

Right or wrong, the question of title is at end, so far as plaintiff is concerned; and if he was in possession when this suit was brought, he was simply a trespasser, without a plausible pretext of right. On the trial in the court below, he declined to offer any evidence; and the value of his alleged possession is not stated, nor is it proven.

Manifestly, the value of the property itself, which is neither alleged nor proven, would be no criterion; and we know of no basis upon which an estimate could be*made of the value of a possession which rests on no other foundation than a lawless invasion of the right of the owner.

The rehearing is refused.  