
    The State v. The Judge of the Court of Probates of New Orleans.
    An appeal will lie in favor of the heirs from a judgment on an opposition made by them to a tableau of distribution presented by the curator of the succession of the deceased, though none of the claims so opposed and allowed against the estate exceed three hundred dollars, where their whole amount exceeds that sum.
    Rule on the Judge of the Court of Probates of New Orleans, to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued directing him to allow a suspensive appeal from a judgment rendered in the matter of the succession of George Asbridge, deceased.
    Greiner, for the rule,
    cited 11 La. 462 ; 3 Robinson, 6.
    Bermudez, Judge of Probates of New Orleans,
    showed for cause against the rule, that the amount of the claims of the different creditors, being each less than three hundred dollars, they could not appeal from the judgment rendered ; (Const, art. 4, s. 2;) and that, consequently, no appeal would lie from the same judgment against them.
   Martin, J.

To a rule on the Judge to show cause why the heirs of George Asbridge should not have an appeal from a judgment rejecting their opposition to a tableau, presented by the curator of the estate of the deceased, he shows for cause, that this court has no jurisdiction of a judgment by which $16 are allowed to Allard & Charbonnet, $75 to McPherson, $250 to Vandal-son, $125 to H. R. Grandmont, and $87 55 to Hennen, as neither of these sums exceeds three hundred dollars, although the aggregate be upwards of five hundred.

It is clear that the claim of the heirs against the curator, is for upwards of five hundred dollars. This gives them a right to solicit the assistance of this court, if their claim be reduced or destroyed by improper allowances, whether any, or all of these, be for a sum less than three hundred dollars. S La. 164.

The rule must, therefore, be made absolute.  