Louisiana Western R. Co. v. Crossman's Heirs
| Decision Date | 04 January 1904 |
| Docket Number | 14,836 |
| Parties | LOUISIANA WESTERN R. CO. v. CROSSMAN'S HEIRS et al |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu Edmund Denis Miller, Judge.
Action by the Louisiana Western Railroad Company against the heirs of M. J. Crossman and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Modified.
Denegre Blair & Denegre and Pujo & Moss, for appellant.
Thomas T. Taylor, for appellees.
Plaintiff sued for a right of way on and over the lands of defendants.
The company is the owner of a railroad extending from Lafayette, La., to the western boundary of the state.
The purpose of this railroad is to acquire a right of way for a branch line extending from a point at or near the city of Lake Charles to Lake Arthur, in the parish of Calcasieu.
Commissioners were appointed to appraise the property which plaintiff seeks to expropriate for this right of way.
The value of the land sought to be expropriated for this branch road and the extent of the damages present the questions at issue.
The other questions involved are corollaries of these two, viz., value and amount of damages.
The Legislature delegated to the plaintiff authority to obtain land needful for its right of way -- on petition of the company for the appointment of commissioners as was done in this case.
The commissioners were appointed as before mentioned. They heard witnesses and arrived at a decision in regard to the value of the land.
They presented their report to the court, in which they recite, in substance, that they estimate the damages to property described in plaintiff's petition, as belonging to the heirs of M. J. Crossman, as follows, viz.:
For 4.42 acres in Sec. 35, T. 9 S., R. 8 W., at $ 25 per acre, $ 110.50; for depreciation of values of 15 acres, located west of the right of way, at $ 5 per acre, $ 75; total, $ 110.50+$ 75=$ 185.50.
The damages to the property, described in plaintiff's petition, of J. B. Watkins, they appraised as follows, viz.:
For 3.3 acres in Sec. 7, T. 10 S., R. 7 W., $ 20 an acre, $ 66; for depreciation of value of 21 acres, located west of the right of way, $ 2.50 per acre, $ 52.50; total, $ 66+$ 52.50=$ 118.50.
In another section, for another strip of land of this owner, $ 76 were allowed, and the commissioners returned that they had found no damages for depreciation of this land.
Defendants excepted to the report of the commissioners, and opposed its approval by the court, on the ground, mainly, that the amount allowed was inadequate, contrary to the evidence, and worked an injustice. Opponents charge that the commissioners were misled by inadmissible testimony, and were prompted by prejudice, and leaned in their views against one of the opponents.
The judge of the district court, after having considered the award of the commissioners, increased the amount allowed as follows:
To the heirs of M. J. Crossman he allowed the sum of $ 400.50, and to J. B. Watkins he allowed the sum of $ 430.
From the judgment the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
At the outset of our opinion we were called upon, in view of the differences in the estimate of value of the land, and the amount of damages for depreciation, between the trial judge and the commissioners, to consider the effect to be given to the return of the latter.
The charter of the plaintiff company (Act No. 21, p. 263, of 1878, § 8) declares that, upon the report of the commissioners, the judge shall have entered such an order as he deems just, on the lines heretofore mentioned, confirming the report, modifying it, or in the alternative, if by him deemed proper, he is authorized to order another appraisement to be made by those commissioners, or he may appoint other commissioners to make the reappraisement.
We have seen that the court, in the exercise of its authority, was of the view that it was within its discretion to increase the amount.
The word "modify," as written in the statute, we consider as controlling; that is, the judge may modify the return of the commissioners.
The charter provides that the trial judge may modify the return.
This of itself leaves scant room for the inference that it is within the discretion of the judge of the first instance to increase the amount.
From the word "modify" we are not led to imply that the court has authority to find another and an independent amount, but the authority is exclusively one to "modify" the amount allowed. Moreover, the method here adopted by the Legislature is one which prevails at common law in some of the states.
The views of the courts vary in these (the common-law) states. The weight of the decisions, however, does not sustain the view that it is the intention, in using this word, to enlarge or increase an amount allowed, instead of, as expressed in the statute here, "to modify." See word "Modify," 20 Am. & Eng. Enc....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Deusen v. Ruth
... ... Couch v. Southern Methodist ... University, 10 S.W.2d 973; Louisiana Western ... Railroad Co. v. Crossman Heirs, 111 La. 611, 35 So. 784; ... ...