The opinion of the court was delivered by

The final account in this succession was filed in 1876. Oppositions were filed by the heirs. They were dismissed and the account was homologated.

On appeal to this court the judgment of the lower court was amended, striking from the account the item to the ..credit of Louis Mathe, and in other respects it was affirmed.

The succession was ordered to pay the costs of the opposition and the appeal.

The cost bill amounted to $227.60.

Mrs. Catherine Bougart filed a rule on February 29, 1889, on the executrix to file a final account of the administration of said succession, as she had filed none since the rendition of said judgment, ordering the succession to pay said costs. The defendant in the rule pleaded the prescription of one, three and ten years, which was sustained, and there was judgment dismissing the rule.

The plaintiff in rule appeals.

*517This court must proprio motu dismiss the appeal.

The entire fund of the succession was disposed of by the judgment, homologating the account. The amount for cost is the only sum to be distributed. This is the amount in controversy. It is less than the lower limit of our jurisdiction. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Succession of Duran, 34 An. 585; Succession of Gohs, 37 An. 429; Harmony Club vs. N. O. Gas Light Co., 41 An. (not yet. reported).

On Application por Rehearing.

The appellants contended that this court has jurisdiction and relies on the ruling in Factors’ Insurance Company vs. New Harbor Protection Company, 39 An. 583, as decisive.

The cases are dissimilar.

The court there decided that, as the controversy was the construction of an existing judgment for more than $2000, involving the question whether or not it bore interest, the issue raised was, whether the complainants were or not entitled to the amount with interest, and thus the case was appealable.

In the instant case, the judgment homologating the amount at the cost of the succession is not sought to be construed. It has received its execution, is defunct and is not sought to be enforced.

The only remnant of it which is the matter now in dispute, is the costs set up by the plaintiffs in rule, for $277.60 only, which were not. fixed at that sum by the previous judgment, and to recover which they have instituted a new independent proceeding, equivalent to a direct suit, in which, from no aspect, this court can render a judgment for an amount exceeding $2000 with costs, which it could have done in the ease invoked, with or without interest, with or without costs.

The refusal to take jurisdiction is well founded.

Rehearing refused.