
    No. 10,662.
    The State ex rel. Bobet Bros. vs. The Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Parish of Orleans.
    1. Where neither the principal nor the roconventional demand exceeds $2000, neither is appealable to this court.
    2. The amounts involved in both can not bo cumulated to éstablisli jurisdiction, and the case is not affected by the fact that the decision of both depends on the solution of the same question arising under the same contract.
    y^PPLICATION for Certiorari and Prohibition.
    
      Charles Carroll for the Relators:
    “ Tlie real amount in dispute, exclusive of interest, whenever the same can bo legally ascertained from the pleading's and documents, and not the allegations of thcparlies, is to be the test of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.” See 82 An. 929 ; 32 An. 1191; 38 An. 394.
    Whore a suit involves an orignal demand for $317.87, based solely on the claim that defendants are liable as sureties on a contract for more than $2000, and a recon-volitional demand claiming repayment of $1708.67, paid under protest by reason of the same contract — the judgment as to both original and roconventional demand depending solely on the question, whether or not the contract is binding on tlic defendants — then the matter in dispute is the amount of both demands, $2116.54, and the Court of Appeals is_without jurisdiction. Const., Arts. 81 and 128, as amended; Lartigue vs. White, 25 An. 291; ICllis vs. Silverstein, 26 An. 47; Beirne vs. Gill, 34 An. 7; State ex rol. vs. Judge, 24 An. 601; State ex rel. vs. Judge, 21 An. 65; Peychaud vs. Weber, 25 An. 133.
    If in a suit involving' an original and roconventional demand, tbe judgment to be rendered on both demands depends solely and entirely on one and the same question; and if that judgment will affect the parties litigant to an amount in excess of $2000, then “the matter in dispute” exceeds that sum, and the Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction. The eases where the original and recon- ■ ventional demands have not been cumulated are eases presenting two suits in one, where the matter in dispute on the one hand was different from the mattcr in dispute on the other — each requiring a distinct and separate examination. See Gove vs. Kendig, 3 Rob. 386; Hanna vs. Rartlette, 10 Rob. 438; lix parte Goodwin, 11 Hob. 12; Lamorore vs. Avery, .32 An. 1008.
    
      
      Rice <& Armstrong for the Respondents:
    1. In an appeal from a judgment upon a principal and upon a reconventional demand tlie jurisdiction of the appellate court depends, as to tlie principal demand, upon its amount; and, as to tlie reconventional demand, upon its amount. Tlie principal and reconvenlional demands are not to be aggregated in order to determine tlie appellate jurisdiction. Const, of State, Art. 128, as amended; Gove vs. Kendig, 8 Rob. 387; Hanna vs. Bartletle, 10 Rob. 438; JCx 2>aHe Goodwin, 11 Rob. 12; Uamorero vs. Avery, 32 An. 1010; Dean vs. Ciarle, 5 An. 105; Tardos vs. Ship Toulon, 14 An. 190; Stevenson vs. Whitney, 33 An. 658; Smith vs. Ins. Co., 33 An. 1072; Colomb vs. McQuaid, 3G An. 827; Prejean vs. Docompte, 41 An. 748.
    2. In ease of money demand, the jurisdiction of the appellate court depends upon llie amount, and not upon tlie cause of demand.
   The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Fenner, J.

The relators invoke the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction to prohibit the Court of Appeals from entertaining an appeal which, it is claimed, is not within the jurisdiction of said court.

The appeal is taken in a suit in which the plaintiff claims a judgment against the defendants for §347.87, and in which the defendants deny said claim, and, assuming the position of plaintiff in re-convention, pray for judgment in their favor for §1768.67.

Both the principal and the reconventional demands are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

As we very recently said,'“ It is well settled that the appealable character of the principal and reconventional demands must each be separately established, and that the amounts of both can not be cumulated to bring the amount within our jurisdiction.” Prejean vs. Lecompte, 41 An. 748; see also Colomb vs. McQuaid, 36 An. 370; Smith vs. Ins. Co., 33 An. 1072; Stevenson vs. Whitney, Id., 658.

The rule must be applied in this ease. It can not be varied by the • fact that the decision of both demands depends on the solution of the same question arising under the same contract.

Whatever may have been the measure of the original rights and obligations of the parties to this contract, if they have so dealt with each other that neither can or does claim from the other an amount exceeding §2000, they have necessarily placed their demands outside of our jurisdiction, and within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

We have attentively considered the several authorities quoted by-counsel for relators, but find them all to rest on different principles,, and not applicable to this case.

It is therefore ordered that the writs prayed for be denied at relators’ cost.  