The opinion
SANDERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In my opinion, this case is appealable to the Court of Appeal and, under established procedure, should be remanded to that court for appellate review.
We have long recognized that the right of appeal is an important safeguard in the administration of justice. Appeals are favored by the courts. The dismissal of an appeal should be ordered only for a clear and substantial cause. Kirkeby-Natus Corporation v. Campbell, 250 La. 868 , 199 So.2d 904 (1967); Emmons v. Agricultural Insurance Company, 245 La. 411 , 158 So.2d 594 (1963); Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, 242 La. 334 , 136 So.2d 62 (1961); Hood, The Right of Appeal, 29 La.L.Rev. 498 (1969).
In Kirkeby-Natus Corporation v. Campbell, supra, we stated:
“On many occasions in our jurisprudence we have declared that appeals are favored by the courts; that they should be dismissed only for substantial causes; and that unless the grounds urged for dismissal are free from doubt appeals will be maintained.”
Article 2083 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provides:
“An appeal may be taken from a final judgment rendered in causes in which appeals are given by law whether rendered after hearing or by default, and from an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury.”
Since the contempt adjudication in the present action is a final judgment, it is appealable as a matter of right unless the law elsewhere excludes such appeals. See Bowen v. Doyal, 259 La. 839 , 253 So.2d 200 (1971); Succession of Damico, 161 La. 725 , 109 So. 402 (1925).
*516 Article 7, Section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in “criminal cases.” Article 7, Section 29 gives the Courts of Appeal jurisdiction in “all civil matters of which the district courts throughout the state have exclusive original jurisdiction.” Hence, for appellate jurisdiction, the case must be classified as either a criminal case or a civil matter.
In my opinion, it is not a criminal case, because Section 10 governing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court refers to convictions for statutory crimes.
Although it has unique features, a contempt adjudication of this kind should be classified as civil for appellate purposes. The Court of Appeal in the present case so classified it, but found that the district court’s jurisdiction was non-exclusive. The Court of Appeal apparently held that the Legislature’s contempt authority negated the district courts’ exclusive jurisdiction of this type of proceeding.
As used in the constitutional provision, jurisdiction is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine an action or proceeding. See LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1. Exclusive, of course, means non-concurrent. For concurrent jurisdiction to exist, another court must have been granted the legal power and authority to entertain the same type of action. It must have jurisdiction over the same subject matter. The obvious purpose of limiting appeals in this category to matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district courts was to deny appeals in civil matters involving one hundred dollars or less, of which the Justices of the Peace have concurrent jurisdiction. See Art. 7, Sect. 48, Louisiana Constitution. The investiture of contempt authority in the Legislature does not render the district court’s jurisdiction concurrent. Since the district courts are the only courts with original jurisdiction over the subject matter, that jurisdiction is exclusive.
I am of the opinion, therefore, that the contempt judgment is appealable. My conclusion in this regard is supported by several decisions of the intermediate courts of appeal. See, e. g., Asp, Incorporated v. Capital Bank & Trust Company (Joint Legislative Committee v. Broussard; Joint Legislative Committee v. Pinell) La.App., 174 So.2d 809 ; Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Heiman, La.App., 230 So.2d 405 .
In reaching this determination, I am aware of the jurisprudential rule denying an appeal from contempt adjudications for direct affronts to the dignity of a court, in which sentence is imposed to vindicate the authority of the court and protect the judicial process. See State ex rel. Milling v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 154 La. 752 , 98 So. 175 (1923); State ex rel. Dowling v. Ray, 150 La. 1030 , 91 So. *518 443 ; (1922); White v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company, La.App., 94 So.2d 95 (1957); State ex rel. Connerly v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, La.App., 9 So.2d 826 (1942); 17 Tul.L.Rev. 655, 656-657 (1943).
In my opinion, however, the rationale of these decisions is inapplicable here. The present action is an independent adversary proceeding between two litigants. The proceeding involves both the law and the facts. The facts must be established in accordance with regular procedures. As in other civil matters, the right of appeal is an essential safeguard.
I note, however, that a majority of the Court has concluded that the Court of Appeal has no appellate jurisdiction in the matter. Hence, it becomes necessary for me to record my view on the merits. On the merits, I concur with the majority in affirming the judgment of contempt rendered by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge.
For the reasons assigned, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.