Gill v. City of Lake Charles
Citation | 119 La. 17,43 So. 897 |
Decision Date | 29 April 1907 |
Docket Number | 16,405 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | GILL et al. v. CITY OF LAKE CHARLES et al |
Appeal from Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu; Edmund Dennis Miller, Judge.
Action by Hardy C. Gill and others against the city of Lake Charles and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
Schwing & Moore, for appellants.
Thomas Thompson Taylor, for appellees.
The city of Lake Charles is situated on the shore of Lake Charles. An ordinance of the city has granted to the St Louis, Watkins & Gulf Railway, a franchise giving it the right and power to construct and operate a steam railroad along the lake front from Clarence street to Broad street. The plaintiffs, eight in number, allege that they are citizens and taxpayers of the city, and owners of the property abutting upon the lake between the said Clarence and Broad streets, and also of the riparian rights pertaining to said property; that the so-called Front street, along which said franchise is given, has never been dedicated or expropriated as a street, and is not a street, but at best "an easement by the owners for passage on foot and in ordinary vehicles"; that, by the construction and operation of said railroad, said easement would be either destroyed or rendered dangerous and impracticable, and petitioners' said property would be cut in two, deprived of its said riparian rights, and rendered uninhabitable by the difficulty of access and by the smoke, jars, and noises attendant upon the operation of trains, and, as a consequence, said ordinance, if carried into effect, would damage each of the petitioners in the sum of over $ 2,000 that petitioners protested against the adoption of said ordinance as a manifest and gross oppression and abuse of power; and that said ordinance is null, because it both takes and damages the property of petitioners without compensation and is ultra vires, and is violative of the city charter, in the following particulars: Here follow eight specifications, among which is the one that the franchise was granted without competition and without consideration, although worth more than $ 100,000, and although other parties might have bid for same if the charter requirements for the invitation of sealed proposals and for publication had been complied with. The city and the railroad company are made defendants, and the prayer is that the ordinance be annulled.
Defendants excepted that there is no allegation of privity of interest between the plaintiffs, and that therefore there is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff.
The lower court sustained this exception, and dismissed the suit in so far as it is a joint suit, but reserved to the plaintiffs the right to prosecute it in any one of their separate names. From that judgment the plaintiffs have appealed.
The Code is singularly silent on the subject of joinder of parties. The provision bearing nearest upon the subject is that contained in article 147 et seq., dealing with "Cumulated Actions," where the cumulation of several demands is expressly authorized, provided they are not inconsistent. This, apparently, leaves the door open for several plaintiffs to join their suits against several defendants, regardless of privity or connection between them, so long as the demands are not inconsistent. But no one ever understood that the intention was to sanction anything of that kind, and this court soon had occasion to discountenance such a practice, declaring that it was "at variance with well-settled rules of pleading" [Mayor v. Azmant, 14 La.Ann. 181; Dyas v. Dinkgrave, 15 La.Ann. 502, 77 Am. Dec. 196], and that the "law" did not favor "a multiplicity of actions against different parties in the same suit." Leverich v. Adams, 15 La.Ann. 310. But the court did not say where this "law" and these "well-settled rules of pleading" were to be found.
We look in vain for them in the Spanish and French systems of procedure prevailing at the time of the adoption of our Code of Practice; but we find them in the common-law books, and we know that our Code of Practice was derived largely from that system, while our Criminal Procedure was taken bodily from it. The rules there laid down are safe guides, all the more so because they are not the product of arbitrary legislation, but the gradual result of the application of pure reason to the exigencies of cases in actual practice. The following statement of the law upon this subject, taken from Gaines v. Crew et al., 2 How. 619, 11 L.Ed. 402, a Louisiana case, is as satisfactory as any:
On the same subject we transcribe from 14 E. of P. & P. 195, 200, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parish of Plaquemines v. Total Petrochemical & Refining USA, Inc.
...v. Bd. of Trustees of Police Pens. Fund, 309 So.2d 144, 147 (La.1975) (citing La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 463 cmt. (c); Gill v. City of Lake Charles, 43 So. 897 (1907) ). It reflects a policy to avoid where possible a multiplicity of actions in the interests of judicial efficiency, providing tha......
-
Burkett v. Globe Indemnity Co
... ... Those allegations are admitted ... by the demurrer ... City of ... Vicksburg v. Holmes, 106 Miss. 234, 63 So. 454; Pate ... Auto ... Gill v ... City of Lake Charles, 43 So. 897; Courtney v. L. R. & N ... ...
- Jefferson Parish v. Exxon Mobile Corp.
- Plaquemines Parish v. Bepco, L.P.