
    (99 South. 213)
    No. 26302.
    CLEMENTINE v. RITCHIE.
    (Jan. 28, 1924.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Courts @=>224(10) — Supreme Court held not to have jurisdiction of workmen’s compensation case involving less than $2,000.
    On defendant’s appeal in workmen’s compensation case, where the amount sued for was $212.82, the Supreme Court was without jurisdiction, the amount being less than $2,000.
    2. Courts @=>224(10) — Supreme Court will not assume jurisdiction of appeal in compensation case which is within jurisdiction of Court of Appeal.
    Since, under Const. 1921, art. 7, §§ 10, 29, appeals under the Workmen’s Compensation Law are returnable to the Court of Appeal where the amount exceeds $100, regardless of the maximum amount claimed, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction of a case where the amount sued for was $212.82.
    3. Courts @=3224(6) — Statute held not declared unconstitutional- so as to confer jurisdiction on Supreme Court.
    Where the constitutionality of Act No. 20 of 1914, § 6, on which plaintiff’s suit was founded, was raised in the lower court, but was not made the basis of,a judgment of dismissal, the court’s holding that plaintiff’s petition did not bring his case within the terms of the act was not one declaring the statute unconstitutional so as to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Hugh C. Cage, Judge.
    Suit for compensation by Lorenzo Clementine against Hugh Ritchie. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Case transferred to Court of Appeal.
    Edward Rightor, of New Orleans, for appellant.
    E. M. Stafford and Daniel Wendling, both of New Orleans, for appellee.
    By Division C, composed of OVEtRTON, ST. PAUL, and THOMPSON, JJ.
   THOMPSON, J.

This is a suit for compensation under Act 20 of 1914 and the several acts amendatory thereto.

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by one Abe Willis, who was a subcontractor under the defendant; and that defendant was constructing a work which was part of Ms business, that is, building houses and selling them over again; and that said Willis was a subcontractor on one of said houses on which plaintiff was injured. The amount sued for is $212.82.

It is apparent that this court is without jurisdiction of this appeal (1) because the amount sued for is under $2,000, the lower limit of the jurisdiction of this court, and (2) for the reason that appeals under: the Workmen’s Compensation Law are returnable to the Court of Appeal where the amount exceeds $100, regardless of the maximum amount claimed. Constitution of 1921, art. 7, §§ 10 and 29.

The appeal was brought to this court on the theory that section 6 of Act 20 of 1914, on which plaintiff’s suit is founded, was held to be unconstitutional by the trial court. The constitutionality of the section in question was raised in the lower court, and was considered by the court, but was not made the basis of the judgment in dismissing plaintiff’s suit. The court distinctly held that the allegations of plaintiff’s petition did not bring his case within the terms of section 6 of Act 20 of 1914. The court, in giving reasons for judgment, stated that, if the construction placed by counsel for plaintiff on section 6 were adopted, the section would be open to the objection of not being covered by the title of the act. But plaintiff’s interpretation was held erroneous, and the one adopted by the court saved the constitutional integrity of the law.

It is therefore ordered and decreed that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans, and that appellant pay the costs incurred in bringing the appeal to this court.  