City of Shreveport v. Pedro

• Decision Date: 31 March 1930
• Docket Number: 30419
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF SHREVEPORT v. PEDRO

127 So. 865

170 La. 351

CITY OF SHREVEPORT v. PEDRO

No. 30419

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 31, 1930

Appeal from Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of Bossier Robert Roberts, Judge.

Suit by the City of Shreveport against Sam Pedro to expropriate certain land. The jury of freeholders returned a verdict for plaintiff and fixed the value of the land, and plaintiff appeals, and defendant answers the appeal.

Affirmed.

B. F Roberts, City Atty., Barnette & Roberts, Smitherman, Tucker &amp Mason, and Pugh, Grimmet & Boatner, all of Shreveport, for appellant.

Thomas W. Robertson, of Shreveport, for appellee.

OPINION

OVERTON, J.

This is a suit brought to expropriate 18.73 acres of land, located in the parish of Bossier, near Shreveport, in the parish of Caddo. The reason why plaintiff desires to expropriate the property is that it wishes to donate it to the United States to form part of a 22,000 acre tract to be used as an airport, flying field, bombing range, and for other military purposes. The suit was brought under the provisions of Act No. 5 of the extra session of the Legislature of 1928, and under other general laws of the state, governing the expropriation of property. The jury of freeholders returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and fixed the value of the land, to be expropriated, at $ 11,983.15, and the trial judge signed a judgment accordingly.

Defendant, in his answer, pleaded, among other things, that "all the acts, laws and ordinances and resolutions under which the plaintiff is seeking to confiscate and expropriate his property are null, void, ultra vires and unconstitutional and that same should be so held and declared. That same violate the due process of law clause of the U.S. Constitution." Defendant filed an answer to the appeal, praying that this plea be considered.

It is elementary that all laws are presumed to be constitutional until the contrary is made clearly to appear, and that he who urges the unconstitutionality of a law must specially plead its unconstitutionality, and show specifically wherein it is unconstitutional. The plea, in this instance, is too vague to put at issue the unconstitutionality of the laws attacked. The court cannot be expected to make an examination to ascertain the various laws under which plaintiff may have acted and to ascertain wherein they violate the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States, or are otherwise unconstitutional, and, if they are, in what respect they are so, nor can the opposite party to the litigation, under these circumstances, be expected to meet the attack, for he is not sufficiently informed by the plea to undertake the task, and, moreover, the burden is not upon him to show that they are constitutional. See State v. Hudson, 162 La. 543, 110 So. 749.

The sole remaining question brought up by the appeal is whether defendant has been allowed an excessive amount for the land. The 18.73 acres, constituting the tract sought to be expropriated, is somewhat irregular in shape, and a part of it is taken up by a non-navigable bayou. The land, however, is fertile, and its closeness to Shreveport and the fact that it is on a paved highway, leading into Shreveport, a railroad only intervening between the property and the highway, gives it a value largely in excess of what it would otherwise have.

Plaintiff showed that defendant's vendor acquired the property in April, 1926, for $ 4,285, and offered several experts who testified that immediately prior to the time of its being known that the flying field would be located in that neighborhood, the land was worth $ 250 an acre, and that the improvements on it, which are also being expropriated with it, are worth $ 2,000, making a total valuation of $ 6,682.50....