(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

This case was argued and submitted with the cáse of Bowen v. Doyal, Administrator of Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, State of Louisiana, and Roy O. Martin Lumber Company, No. 50,-945 of the Docket of this Court. I see no reason to delay judgment in this matter by transferring it to the Court of Appeal. It should be decided here and now. See, LSÁ-C.C.P., Arts. 5051, 2164, 862.

The - Administrator ,of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor has appealed’from a judgment of the district court sustaining an exception, to the jurisdiction which was filed'by another defendant, Wilshire Manor Nursing Home. The administrator filed in this court a motion to consolidate this case with the case of Bowen v. Doyal, Administrator, No. 50945 on our docket, alleging that the issues in both cases are exactly the same.

We entertained appellate jurisdiction under Constitution Article 7, Section 10(2), in the Bowen case, this day decided, 259 La. 839, 253 So.2d 200, because the judgment there had the effect of declaring a statute unconstitutional. The record in the instant case, however, contains no reference to the statute, and it would appear, that -the trial judge sustained the exception as filed. Neither the exception fil$d nor the judgment mentions the unconstitutionality of any statute. Our appellate jurisdiction is very restricted, and the record must affirmatively establish that jurisdiction. Appeals from district court judgments reviewing administrative rulings ordinarily lie to the Courts of Appeal. See Bowen v. Doyal, supra. We find no basis for exercising our appellate jurisdiction here. -

For the reasons given, this appeal is ordered transferred to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, provided that the record is filed in that court within '30 days from the *865date on 'which this decree becomes ■ final; otherwise the appeal shall be dismissed.

(disséhting).

The decree sustaining the exception of lack of jurisdiction necessarily found Section 1634 of Title 23 of the Revised Statutes to be contrary to .Section 36 of Article VII of the Constitution. This being so, the matter is properly before this Court on appeal and the majority should adjudicate the question. I would reach the same result reached in my dissenting opinion in Bowen v. Doyal, Administrator of Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, State of Louisiana, and Roy O. Martin Lumber Company, 259 La. 839, 253 So.2d 200, decided this day.