dollars, and obtained judgment therefor. Held, that the Court of Appeal was without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. State ex rel. Taylor vs. Judges, 107 La. 784. (Did the District Court have jurisdiction to render the judgment?) The Court of Appeals, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, has the exclusive power to issue a writ of prohibition to a district court, which attempts to try a case on the docket of the appellate court, and of which its jurisdiction had not been divested (State ex rel. Kirsch vs. Judge, 45 An. 1206), and where the appeal is returnable to the appellate court, it alone has authority to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari. Troegel vs. King, 46 An. 421.

The supervisory power of the Supreme Court cannot be invoked to test the sufficiency of the amount of an appeal bond, in a case appealable to the Court of Appeal. State vs. Judge, 43 An. 936. Id. 934.

The Court of Appeal is without jurisdiction to try a suit for alimony (Constitution 81, 95); State ex rel. Suberville vs. Judges, 45 An. 1319; and of a suit to annul a judgment discharging an insolvent from liabilities exceeding $2,000, although the claim of the attacking creditor was less than $2,000. State ex rel. Adams et al. vs. Judges, 41 An. 56.

The Circuit Court is without jurisdiction to decide either the constitutionality of a license tax of the State, or that of acts of the Legislature giving the State a lien on immovable property, to secure the payment of the tax. State ex rel Lyons, Tax Collector, vs. Court of Appeal, 49 An. 1221.

Amendment of Constitution, Art. 95 (Act 125, 1882), conferred, jurisdiction upon Courts of Appeal of suits involving not exceeding $2,000. The court is, therefore, without jurisdiction over suit for greater amount, though judgment appealed from was for less. State cx rel. Hargrove vs. Judges. 37 An. 372; and see 32 An. 597.

Defendant was sued for the undivided interest of property valued at $300, purchased by him at a tax sale. He reconvened for the price of adjudication-$93.90. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment maintaining defendant's reconventional demand, and giving him the right to hold the property until the sum was paid. Held: The Circuit Court had jurisdiction, because the amount in dispute was the value of the property. State ex rel. Minor et als. vs. Judges, 49 An. 304. [Courts of Appeal, How Constituted-Designation of District

Judges by Supreme Court as Judges of Court of Appeal-
Expenses of Judges, etc.]

Art. 99. The Courts of Appeal shall remain as at present constituted, until the first day of July, 1900. From and after that date the several Courts of Appeal, except as hereinafter provided, shall consist of one of the judges of those courts whose terms shall not have expired, and who, with a judge of a district court to be designated by the Supreme Court, shall be assigned by the Supreme Court to that duty, throughout the State.

From and after the first day of July, 1904, the Courts of Appeal shall be composed of two district judges, to be from time to time designated by the Supreme Court, and assigned to the performance of the duties of judges of said Courts of Appeal; provided, that no district judge shall be assigned to

serve as a member of the Court of Appeal for any parish in his own district; and, provided further, that district judges shall be paid their actual and necessary expenses when serving as judges of the Courts of Appeal in such manner as may be provided by law.

Const., 1879, Arts. 96 to 102, provides for courts of appeal under an entirely different system from Const., 1878.

[Terms of Courts of Appeal to Be Fixed by Law.]

Art. 100. There shall be two terms of the said Courts of Appeal held in each parish annually, to be fixed by the judges of said courts, until the first day of July, 1904. Thereafter the terms of said courts shall be fixed in such manner as may be provided by law.

A District Judge has a right to be heard and consulted on the fixing of the terms of the Court of Appeal in the parish or parishes in which he is one of the judges of that court. State ex rel. Judge vs. Judge, 104 La. 106.

See Terms of Court," p. 927.

[Certification of Cases to Supreme Court by Courts of Appeal, etc.-Power of Supreme Court in Such Cases, etc.]

Art. 101. The judges of the Courts of Appeal shall have power to certify to the Supreme Court any question or proposition of law arising in any cause pending before them concerning which they desire the instruction of that court, for its proper decision; and thereupon the Supreme Court may either give its instruction on the question or proposition certified to it, which shall be binding upon the Court of Appeal in such case, or it may require that the whole record be sent up for its consideration, and thereupon shall decide the whole matter in controversy in the same manner as if it had been on appeal directly to the Supreme Court. It shall be competent for the Supreme Court to require by certiorari, or otherwise, any case to be certified from the Courts of Appeal to it for its review and determination, with the same power and authority in the case, as if it had been carried directly by appeal to the said court; provided, that the Supreme Court shall in no case exer-, cise the power conferred on it by this article, unless the application be made to the court, or to one of the justices thereof, not later than thirty days after the decision of the Court of Appeal has been rendered and entered.

See Act 191, 1898, writs of review, etc., printed at p. 925, and reference to rules of Supreme Court governing applications on p. 924.

Cases Illustrating the Purpose and Object of Art. 101.—It is discretionary with the court to grant or withhold the writ of certiorari or review contemplated by the Constitution. The power lodged by it in the Supreme Court should be exercised only in special or extreme cases, whose peculiar circumstances as to facts or law justify a resort to it in the opinion of the court. It is not to be construed so as to make of the Supreme Court a Superior Court of Appeals over the Circuit Courts to take jurisdiction of, and hear and determine any and all cases decided by the latter courts. In re Ingersoll applying for writ of review, ete., 50 An. 749.

*

*

*

*

*

The Supreme Court has no appellate jurisdiction to review judgment of the Court of Appeal. Art. 101 adopts the provisions of the Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, 26th Statutes, p. 828; Sec. 6 authorizing the writ of certiorari to Courts of Appeal. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, under that Statute, was doubtless in contemplation. Generally the writ issues to secure uniformity of decision by the Courts of Appeal and other esses of importance presenting legal questions.'' The writ will issue only in exceptional cases, mainly to secure uniformity of jurisprudence.'' In re Murff, applying for writ, etc., 50 An. 998; In re McLain, et al., id. 999. (See the cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, referred to in the opinions).

Brief of counsel applying for writ of review, stated: "We admit the propositions they [the judges of the Court of Appeal] lay down to be correct ones of law," but claimed that the judgment was contrary to the facts shown in the record. The writ was denied because "not intended to enable parties to review in the Supreme Court decisions of the Courts of Appeal on mere questions of fact." Henkle vs. Bussey, 50 An. 1135.

The writ of review will issue only in exceptional cases, namely to secure uniformity of the jurisprudence. West vs. De Moss et al., 50 An. 1349.

"In our opinion this application presents an alleged erroneous ruling of the Court of Appeal upon a question of fact not examinable under Art. 101 Const., 1898." Pugh & McKoin vs. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 50 An. 1378; Maffaletta vs. Wildenstein, 50 An. 1377.

"The article does not confer on this court appellate jurisdiction to review by certiorari the judgments of the lower courts in all cases. The power to issue the writ is conferred mainly to secure uniformity in our jurisprudence, etc. Williams vs. Broussard, 51 An. 333; Hewitt vs. Buvens, 51 An. 325. See also Dorsett vs. Scott, 51 An. 892; Henrichs vs. Monteleone, 51 An. 896.

The jurisdiction conferred extends only to such cases as involve issues of law or fact which the court in its discretion may deem proper to review. It does not extend to all cases which may be decided by other courts of the State. Murphy vs. Royal Ins. Co., (application for writ of review), 52 An. 775.

Where the decision of a cause in the Court of Appeal, turns on a point on which the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, is clearly conflicting, a writ of review will be granted. Miramon vs. City of New Orleans, 52 An. 1623.

The Supreme Court will not grant the writ of review to examine the judgment of the Court of Appeal, overruling the exception "of no cause of action, and remanding the case for trial on the merits. The exception is amply protected by the reservation of the right to test the final judgment. Schwartz vs. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 105 La. 161.

Writ Will Not Be Granted, Unless Rehearing Applied for in Court of Appeal, and There Acted On.-The term for application for a writ of review does not begin to run until an application for a rehearing has been acted on. Solomon vs. Gardener et als., 52 An. 217.

A writ of review will not be granted to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal, where the error complained of did not exceed twenty-five dollars,

and no effort was made in the Court of Appeal to have the error corrected by an application for a new trial. Seboran & Co. vs. Forgey et als., 51 An. 752. (Rule 12-52 An.-of the Supreme Court provides that an application for the writ will not be entertained until an application for a rehearing has been made and refused.)

An application for a rehearing in the Court of Appeal, and a judgment thereon, is a prerequisite to a writ of review to the Supreme Court, and it is proper for the Court of Appeal to respond in writing to the writ, and to call the attention of the Supreme Court, to the failure of the applicant to apply for a rehearing! Colomb vs. Rolling & McFarland, 106 La. 37.

An application for a writ of review will not be entertained by the Supreme Court, where it appears that an effort was not made in the Court of Appeal to obtain a rehearing as provided by amendment to Rule Twelve of the Supreme Court, published in 52 An. Huddleston vs. Detroit, etc., Co., 106 La. 594.

Rule Twelve of the Supreme Court is imperative, and unsuccessful litigants must apply for a rehearing in the Court of Appeal, or their application for a writ of review will be denied, even though a "rule nisi" was inadvertently issued in the first place. Frellsen vs. Ruddock Cypress Co., 108 La. 37; Colomb vs. Rolling & McFarland, 106 La. 40.

An application for a writ of review will be considered as abandoned, where applicant fails to file a brief in support of his application for a rehearing. Armbruster vs. H. B. Stevens Co., Ltd., Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans, No. 2260.

Writ Will Not Lie to Review Cases Decided by Court of Appeal on Appeal From City Courts of New Orleans.-An application for a writ of review will not be granted, where the judgment was rendered by the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans on a case appealed to it from the City Court. Such cases are tried de novo in the appellate court; the testimony is not reduced to writing, and a written opinion need not be rendered. (Const., Art. 143.) if it was the duty of the Court of Appeal to make a statement of facts when requested, this will not be ordered in the Supreme Court, on the application for the writ. Charlton vs. McConnell, 104 La. 230.

Under this article of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has power to review only judgments rendered on appeal by the Court of Appeal; it does not extend to judgments rendered by the District Courts in the exercise of their original criminal jurisdiction. State ex rel. Green vs. Porter, Judge, et als., 104 La. 538.

Where an application for a writ of review is granted, the Supreme Court should find itself in a situation to pass upon the facts and law of the case, as if it had been carried before it directly by appeal from the District Court. LeSeigneur, et als., vs. Bessan, et al., 52 An. 187; Davenport vs. Adler & Co., et als., 52 An. 263.

Parties Who May Apply for Writ-The parties authorized to apply for the writ of review under this article of the Constitution, are the parties cast in the judgment, or some party who has an interest thereon, and not some one who is simply interested in the determination of the issue as an abstract proposition. Bonner vs. Board of Assessors; Crescent City R. R. Co. vs. same, 52 An. 2062.

In Whose Name Application Must Be Made.-Writs of review under this article must be brought in the names of the original parties to the suit, and not on the relation of the State, as in remedial writs. The "certiorari," under this article of the Const., is different from the writ of the same name mentioned in the Code of Practice. Donaldsonville Ice Co. vs. Schlitz Brewing Co., 104 La. 360.

Result When Court of Appeal Was Without Jurisdiction..-When a case is brought before the Supreme Court by writ of review, it may decide that the Court of Appeal was without jurisdiction in the premises, and the judgment void. But the Supreme Court will not, in such a case, decide upon the merits of a ease brought before it in this irregular manner. State vs. Rosenstream, Weiss & Co., 52 An. 2126.

What Will Be Reviewed, and Extent Thereof.-A ruling of the Court of Appeal to the effect to be given to testimony is not binding on Supreme Court. Goldman vs. Goldman, 51 An. 761. See LeSeigneur et als. vs. Bessan et al., 52 An. 187; Davenport vs. Adler & Co., 52 An. 263.

Where the whole record is sent up, the court will decide the whole matter, as if it had been on appeal direct to the Supreme Court. Baham vs. Stewart Bros. & Co., 109 La. 1010. As to extent of review where case is certified by Court of Appeal, see Ashley Co vs. Bradford, 109 La. 641.

[Number of Judges of Courts of Appeal Necessary to Judg

ment-Selection of District Judges in Certain Cases.] Art. 102. No judgment shall be rendered by the Courts of Appeal without the concurrence of two judges. Whenever there shall be a disagreement in the Courts of Appeal above provided, the court shall appoint a district judge or a lawyer having the qualifications of a judge of the court to sit in the case, and in case of the recusation, absence, or disability, of one of the judges, the other judge shall select a judge or lawyer, as aforesaid, to sit in the case. In the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans, when two judges cannot concur for any reason, the court shall select a district judge, or judges, to sit in the case.

The decree of a Court of Appeal does not become final by the mere disagreement of the two judges of the court, arising in the application for a rehearing, and when that issue has, by application for certiorari been presented to the Supreme Court, it will not decide the case on its merits. State ex rel. Thrower vs. Judges, 50 An. 644.

Where the two judges of a Court of Appeal cannot agree, it is proper to appoint a member of the bar as a judge ad hoc to sit in the case. It was not necessary for the original judges to certify the case to the Supreme Court under Art. 101. Calvin vs. Johnston, Sheriff, et al., 104 La. 655.

Under Const. 1879, Art. 101, the two judges of the Court of Appeal disagreed and selected a member of the bar to sit with them in the case. Before a decision was rendered, one of the judges retired, and his successor entered on the discharge of his duties. Held, that "the functions of the member of the bar selected in the case, when the disagreement existed. ceased necessarily when one of the disagreeing judges retired and his successor was elected." State ex rel. Johnson vs. Judges, 49 An. 337.

[Cases Appealed to Courts of Appeal to Be Tried on Original Record, etc.]

Art. 103. All cases on appeal to the Courts of Appeal shall be tried on the original record, pleadings, and evidence.

Const., 1879, Art. 102.