Griffin v. Shreveport And Arkansas Railroad Co.

• Citation: 41 La.Ann. 808,6 So. 624
• Decision Date: 01 October 1889
• Docket Number: 243
• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana
• Parties: MRS. E. E. GRIFFIN v. THE SHREVEPORT AND ARKANSAS RAILROAD COMPANY

6 So. 624

41 La.Ann. 808

MRS. E. E. GRIFFIN v. THE SHREVEPORT AND ARKANSAS RAILROAD COMPANY

No. 243

Supreme Court of Louisiana

October 1, 1889

APPEAL from the First District Court, Parish of Caddo. Hicks, J.

Land &amp Land, for Plaintiff and Appellee.

Alexander & Blanchard, for Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION

FENNER, J.

The plaintiff claims damages in the sum of $ 10,000, being the amount of diminution of the market value of her property occasioned by the construction by defendant of elevated embankments for the laying of its tracks along the streets contiguous to said property and several feet above the grade of said streets, the effect of which is to obstruct and partially to cut off access thereto.

The answer of defendant admits the building of the embankments and the tracks; but avers that said constructions were made under authority of the council of the city of Shreveport that, therefore, it acted in exercise of a legal right, with due care and caution, and is not liable for any resulting damage to plaintiff.

The Art. 156 of the present constitution of this State provides "Private property shall not be taken nor damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation first paid."

A similar article in the Constitution of the State of Illinois has recently passed under the review of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it was held that under such provision a recovery may be had in all cases where private property has sustained a substantial injury from the making and use of a public improvement, whether the damage be direct, as when caused by trespass or physical invasion of the property, or consequential, as in a diminution of its market value. Chicago vs. Taylor, 125 U.S. 161.

The opinion is well considered and conforms to the rulings of the Supreme Court of Illinois on the same subject. Rigney vs. Chicago, 102 Ill. 64; Chicago and W. I. R. R. vs. Ayers, 106 Ill. 518.

The doctrine seems to us clearly correct and we adopt it.

It follows that the authorization by the city of Shreveport cannot avail to protect the defendant. Had the city itself done the work it would have been responsible.

There is no serious conflict in the evidence on the point that the embankments do materially obstruct access to plaintiff's property and impair the convenience of its use as a cotton warehouse for which it is constructed.

We are not concerned, in this case, with the...