¶1On Motion to Dismiss.
¶2Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the *344appeal was not taken in time to act as a suspensive appeal.
¶3The appeal is now before us.
¶4The question is unimportant, and, if the grounds were sustained, the appeal would still remain as a devolutive appeal.
¶5The bond was in amount fixed by the court. It is good as a devolutive appeal.
¶6The doing of a vain thing does not recommend itself.' The suspensive appeal will not be dismissed, as it would serve no purpose to dismiss it.
¶7The appellees also urged their motion to dismiss ratione materiae of the appeal.
¶8There are two injunction suits.
¶9There are eight heirs. Mrs. Long enjoined as to her interest. She claims one-sixteenth of the property as her share. Pour of the other heirs joined in one injunction as to their interest. They are Miss Lucile and James McCulloch, Mrs. Elise McCulloch, and Mrs. Katherine McCulloch. The other three heirs did not join in these petitions.
¶10The claim of defendant in injunction is for over $2,000.
¶11The highest amount claimed by the heirs jointly is $2,000.
¶12The question is whether or not the amount of plaintiff’s claim or the value of the heir’s interest in the succession determines the amount in dispute; in the latter case, the amount in dispute would not exceed $2,000.
¶13The judgment orders cancellation of a mortgage for an amount over $2,000 in value exclusive of interest. The appeal is within this court’s jurisdiction. Bussiere v. Williams, 37 La. Ann. 387; State ex rel. Bloss v. Judges of Court of Appeals, 33 La. Ann. 1351; Endom v. Ludeling, 34 La. Ann. 1024.
¶14The motion to dismiss is denied.