Chaison v. Wehrt

• Citation: 104 La. 487,29 So. 179
• Decision Date: 01 January 1900
• Docket Number: 13,740
• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana
• Parties: CHARLES J. CHAISON v. A. W. WEHRT

29 So. 179

104 La. 487

CHARLES J. CHAISON v. A. W. WEHRT

No. 13,740

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 1, 1900

APPEAL from the Fifteenth Judicial District, Parish of Calcasieu -- Read, J. ad hoc.

Cline &amp Cline, for Plaintiff, Appellant.

Kleinpeter & Kleinpeter, for Defendant, Appellee.

OPINION

BREAUX J.

This action is petitory and for rent claimed. The lot sued for is situated within the limits of the city of Lake Charles. It is described as being bounded on the east by Front street, on the west by the lake known as Lake Charles, and on the north and south by lines which are extensions respectively of the north and south lines of Pujo street, if prolonged.

Plaintiff claims title down from the United States to his own. He avers that defendant has possession and use of the land in question and he demands rent for this use and possession. It appears that the land is contiguous to Lake Charles, a navigable stream, being a widening of Calcasieu river. This lot abuts on the Lake Charles.

Petitioner claims that the shores of this lake are a part of the public highway, and sets forth that at this point the lake is shallow for some distance and that vessels can not be brought to the bank to receive and discharge freight, and because of this it is necessary to build wharves out from the banks to navigable water, where vessels are loaded or unloaded and passengers find their way to or from these vessels. Plaintiff claims that as front proprietor he has the right to build wharves as wide as his lot and extending into the navigable water; that this right is valuable to him; and that he can not be divested of it without compensation.

The defendant, on the other hand, seeks to meet plaintiff's proposition by averring that he can not be condemned for the reason that he does not claim the ownership or possession of the lot claimed by plaintiff or of any improvement thereon. The evidence shows that the wharf on the front of the lot was built by subscription, a number of interested parties contributing the funds needful for its construction. In the District Court, plaintiff's suit was dismissed as in the case of non-suit. From the judgment, plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.

We glean from the evidence that the wharf, which rests on the front of the property claimed by plaintiff, is used by the public generally in crossing the lake backward and forward and that in the line of his business as ferryman, defendant uses it for landing his steam ferry boat.

But defendant declares as a witness that he is not in possession...