Louisville & N. R. Co. v. R. E. E. De Montluzin Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 April 1928
• Docket Number: 26792
• Citation: 116 So. 854,166 La. 211
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. R. E. E. DE MONTLUZIN CO., INC
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

116 So. 854

166 La. 211

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. R. E. E. DE MONTLUZIN CO., INC

No. 26792

Supreme Court of Louisiana

April 9, 1928

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1928

Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; William H Byrnes, Jr., Judge.

Suit by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company against the R. E E. De Montluzin Company, Inc. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Amended, and, as amended, affirmed.

Denegre, Leovy & Chaffe, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Sanders, Baldwin, Viosca & Haspel, of New Orleans, for appellee.

OPINION

LAND, J.

In the year 1924, it became necessary for the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company to acquire additional property on the west bank, or New Orleans side, of Chef Menteur for a new right of way, and also for temporary use in the handling of material required for the construction of a new bridge over that stream.

In the present suit, filed April 29, 1924, plaintiff company seeks to expropriate for a right of way a strip of land with a frontage of 50 feet on Chef Menteur. This strip lies adjacent to the existing right of way of the company, runs alongside of same a distance of 749.96 feet, and narrows at that point to a strip 25 feet wide, with a depth of 1,021.81 feet.

Plaintiff company is also seeking to expropriate, for temporary use in the handling of materials for its new bridge, another piece of property, with a frontage of 705 feet on Chef Menteur. The depth of this property, on the side next to the first strip, is 231 feet, and narrows to 87 feet on the opposite side.

The first parcel, composed of the two strips, 50x749.96 feet and 25x1,021.81 feet, contains 1.693 acres. The second parcel, with a frontage of 705 feet on the Chef, contains 1.67 acres.

A verdict for the sum of $ 3,800 was returned by the jury in favor of defendant.

Plaintiff company has appealed and asks that the verdict be reduced to $ 228.08. Defendant, the landowner, resists this reduction and, in answer to the appeal, has prayed that the judgment be so amended as to increase the verdict to $ 17,091.

The sole question before the court on appeal is as to the quantum of the award. In our opinion, the verdict is erroneous in part as to the amount, the reduction asked for by plaintiff company is much too low, and the increase demanded by defendant is much too high.

The verdict of the jury is divided into four parts, as follows:

1. Amount allowed for parcel No. 1 (1.693 acres)

for right of way

$ 1,250

2. Damages allowed in connection with expropriation

of parcel No. 1

3. Amount allowed on parcel No. 2 (1.67 acres) for

handling materials for new bridge

1,800

4. Damages allowed in connection with expropriation of parcel No. 2

750

------

Total

$ 3,800

It is well settled that the criterion of value is the market value of the property at the date of the institution of the expropriation suit, in view of any use to which it may be applied and of all the uses to which it is adapted, exclusive of any increase in value given by the construction of the railway thereon. The market value means the fair value of the property between one who wants to purchase and one who wants to sell, under usual and ordinary circumstances. Market value does not mean speculative value. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Baton Rouge Brickyard, 136 La. 833, 67 So. 922, L. R. A. 1917A, 402; Orleans &amp J. R. Co. v. Jefferson & L. P. R. Co., 51 La.Ann. 1605, 26 So. 278; Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Xavier Realty, 115 La. 328, 39 So. 1.

The increase in the verdict in this case, demanded by defendant, is based upon purely speculative values of lots, after the property is subdivided, and after considerable sums have been expended on its improvement. A subsequent subdivision of the property and sale of lots partakes too much of the character of speculation to serve as a basis of valuation at the date of the institution of the present suit. This is a rule well established by the cases above cited.

The evidence in the case shows that at the date of the institution of this suit, April 29, 1924, the land herein sought to be expropriated was available for clubs and camps, and for trapping, fishing, and hunting privileges.

It is located within the corporate limits of the city of New Orleans, is only 20 miles distant from Canal Street, and is accessible both by automobile and by train over the line of plaintiff company.

The accessibility of the lands on the west bank, or New Orleans side, of Chef Menteur makes them, in our...