
    No. 5996.
    State ex rel. M. A. Pike and John H. Pike v. The Judge of the Superior District Court, Parish of Orleans.
    A. L. Gusman, alleging an interest in the affairs of a defunct insurance company, applied to the judge of the Superior District Court, parish of Orleans, for a mandamus to compel M..A. Pike and John A. Pike who had possession of the books of the company, to grant him access to the same for examination. On the writ being made peremptory, the relators M. A. Pike and John A. Pike moved for a suspensive appeal, which being granted was subsequently set aside and permitted to operate only as a devolutive one. Whereupon relators applied to this court for a writ of prohibition to be directed to the judge a quo and the civil sheriff of the parish of Orleans, restraining them from proceeding in the premises. As there is nothing in the record to show that there is an amount exceeding five hundred dollars in dispute, this court has no jurisdiction ratione materice.
    
    APPEAL for a writ of prohibition against the judge of the Superior District Court, parish of Orleans.
    
      H. B. Magruder, for relators. Henry B. Kelly, for A. L. Gusman. Judge Haidkms, in propria persona.
    
   Taliaferro, J.

A. L. Gusman, alleging an interest in the affairs of a defunct insurance company, the books and papers of which being in. the possession of Wm. S. Pike as president, during his life time, were found in his succession after Ms decease, applied to the judge of the Superior Court for a mandamus to compel Mary A. Pike and John H. Pike, the legal representatives ofWm. S. Pike, deceased, to grant him access at seasonaMe and proper hours to the said books and papers for examination. The writ prayed for was made peremptory and the relators applied for a suspensive appeal, which was granted on bond with surety in the sum of $300 as fixed by the judge. The required bond was furnished, but subsequently, on application of Gusman, the judge set aside the appeal as a suspensive one, and permitted it to operate only as a devolutive appeal. The relators thereupon obtained an order of this court requiring the said judge and the civil sheriff of the parish of Orleans to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue restraining them from further proceedings in said case. The judge a quo and the sheriff answered the rule,.and as we think satisfactorily in their behalf.

It is clear that this court has not jurisdiction ratione materiw. See case State ex rel. DeSt. Romes v. The Steam Cotton Press Company, 22 An. 622, and State ex rel. Nugas v. Friedlander, 25 An. 43, and 24 An. 148. Let the writ be discharged.

Morgan, J.,

dissenting. The plaintiff in the rule out of which this proceeding grows, does not claim to be the owner of the books in question. The relators do not pretend to their ownership.

W. S. Pike, it is alleged, was the President of an insurance company. The books of the company were in his possession. The relators found them among his effects.

No person has been appointed by the parties interested in the insurance company to take charge of them.

The plaintiff took a rule upon Mrs. Pike and John Pike, not for their possession but to be authorized to. examine them. He alleges that he owns stock in the company exceeding $3000. No direct action has been instituted. The proceedings commenced by rule. The judge ordered that the books be subject to the inspection of the plaintiff in rule whenever he pleased to examine them on days not legal holidays between the hours of 10 A. M. and 3 P. M.

From this judgment the relators moved for a suspensive appeal, which was granted upon their furnishing bond in the sum of $300. Plaintiff in rule then moved to set aside the appeal, which was done, as regards its suspensive effect, upon the ground that the bond was not sufficient.

I can not agree with my brethren in the opinion that we are without jurisdiction ratione materiw. The relators are by the judgment of the district judge, condemned to submit to a diurnal visit during every legal day, and during all the business hours thereof. To my mind this involves a great deal more than the sum of five hundred dollars. It gives to the plaintiff an office in the relator’s house or at their place of business. It puts a person near them, overlooking their business, and destroys their privacy. Such inconveniences and annoyances are in my opinion of much greater consequence than five hundred dollars.

I think, too, that the bond was sufficient. It was in the sum fixed by the judge, and, as there was neither moneyed judgment to be executed, nor property to be delivered, the bond given was sufficient.

I think the mandamus should be made peremptory.  