Peloquin v. Calcasieu Par. Police Jury - 367 So. 2d 1246 (La. Ct. App. 1979)

Rule:

The final judgment need not dispose of all issues between the parties to be appealable.

Facts:

Mrs. Linscomb, a neighbor of the plaintiff, borrowed an animal trap from the Calcasieu Parish Animal Control Center, an agency of the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, placed it in her yard, and eventually succeeded in trapping a cat, allegedly "George". After trapping the cat, the neighbor returned the trap with the enclosed cat to the Calcasieu Parish Animal Control Center where it was destroyed. Plaintiff, Robert Peloquin, filed suit on behalf of himself, his wife and their two minor children against Mrs. Linscomb and the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury for damages for conversion of their pet cat, "George", for the value of the cat, and for mental anguish, inconvenience, and humiliation suffered due to the alleged actions of the defendants. Defendants filed exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action on the grounds that as the plaintiffs had no ownership interest in George they had no legal grounds to sue for damages for mental anguish, etc. occasioned by his alleged conversion at the hands of defendants. These exceptions were maintained by the trial court, leaving plaintiffs the right to sue for only the worth of the cat, which the court determined was less than the statutorily required amount necessary for a jury trial and thus also denied plaintiffs' request for same. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of a part of their claim. Defendants have objected to the appeal, arguing that the exceptions maintained by the trial court were interlocutory judgments from which no appeal lied. 

Issue:

Were the exceptions maintained by the trial court interlocutory judgments from which no appeal lied? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal under La. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. arts. 1841 and 2083, although the trial court had not yet determined whether the family was entitled to recover the value of the cat because the dismissal of the family's conversion action constituted a final judgment, and their allegations of ownership and dispossession were sufficient to state a cause of action. The court held that a jury had the right to determine whether: (1) pursuant to La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3422, the cat was lost; (2) the family obtained occupancy of the cat under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3412; (3) the family obtained possession of an abandoned or wild thing under La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 3421 and 3415, or by prescription under La. Civ. Code Ann. arts.; 3454, 3457; and (4) the neighbor and the parish were liable for the family's mental anguish under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315, if they engaged in wrongful conversion.