Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

61 So. 2d 248

Brown v. Mayfield

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided October 31, 1952

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1952-10-31

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1959

4 state decisions

Relies on Tucker v. Woodside · Martin v. Carroll

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1952-10-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McINNIS, Judge.

¶1This is a suit for a declaratory judgment in plaintiffs’ favor decreeing them to be the owners of % interest in the oil, gas and other minerals underlying certain lands in-, the Haynesville field in Claiborne Parish.

¶2Judgment was rendered and signed in the district court in favor of plaintiffs.

¶3Defendant appeals suspensively and de-volutively to this court.

¶4The record is bare of any proof, of the-value of the mineral interest. in contest. In the minutes of court is incorporated! the following stipulation: “It is stipulated, by counsel for -both plaintiffs and defendant that the property involved in this suit is. worth more than $100.00 but less- than: $2,000.00.”

¶5Our appreciation of the law is that jurisdiction for purposes of appeal cannot be-conferred by agreement of the parties. Martin v. Carroll, 220 La. 481, 56 So.2d 843; Tucker v. Woodside, 218 La. 708, 50 So.2d 814 and cases cited.

¶6For these reasons this cause is remanded to the district court for the purpose of taking evidence as to the value of the mineral interest in contest. Costs of this appeal to be equally divided between plaintiffs and defendant, taxing other costs to-await final determination of the controversy.

/61/so2d/248 · .json · Public domain