Police Jury of Lafourche v. Police Jury of Terrebonne
| Decision Date | 31 May 1897 |
| Docket Number | 12,468 |
| Citation | 49 La.Ann. 1331,22 So. 376 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | POLICE JURY OF LAFOURCHE v. POLICE JURY OF TERREBONNE |
Argued April 13, 1897
Rehearing Refused June 29, 1897.
APPEAL from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne. Caillouet, J.
Clay Knobloch & Son, for Plaintiff, Appellee.
L. F Suthon and J. C. Briant, for Defendant, Appellant.
In 1822 an act of the Legislature was passed creating the parish of Terrebonne out of a portion of the territory then forming what was called the Lafourche Interior. The act specifically defined the boundaries of the new parish. Subsequently, by act of the Legislature passed in 1850, the western boundary of the parish of Terrebonne was altered.
Dispute arose between the mother parish and her offspring as to the true location of the eastern boundary of the younger parish and in 1881 this culminated in the institution of a suit by the parish of Lafourche against the parish of Terrebonne, the object of which was to have judicially ascertained and established the line between the two parishes as defined by the act of the Legislature.
The cause of this dispute was the ambiguity of language describing the eastern boundary limits of the new parish in the act of 1822.
Between the respective contentions of plaintiff and defendant was a strip of country constituting the disputed territory, and to definitely settle and determine to which parish it rightfully belonged was the purpose of the suit.
The case was tried in the parish of Terrebonne, and there was judgment sustaining the contention of defendant. An appeal was taken to this court, and, in April, 1882, an opinion and decree was handed down reversing the judgment below, and establishing the boundary line in accordance with the contention of the plaintiff. See 34 An. 1230.
A rehearing applied for was refused, the judgment became final, and, thereafter, owners of property in the disputed territory paid taxes in the parish of Lafourche, their acts of sale and mortgages were recorded there, electors voted and performed jury duty therein, and the public schools, bridges and roads of that section passed under the control and jurisdiction of the parish of Lafourche.
Matters continued thus for a period of twelve years, or until 1894, when another litigation sprung up between the parishes. This time it was over the oyster beds in Timbalier Bay.
Again the mother parish of Lafourche took the initiative against her dissentious offspring. A suit was filed in the parish of Terrebonne setting forth that in the previous litigation the location of the boundary line between the parishes had been definitely and finally fixed and that the same was res judicata. It was claimed that this boundary line on the southwest of Lafourche and the southeast of Terrebonne was a stream called Bayou du Chene (otherwise known as Bayou Point au Chien and sometimes as Bayou du Chien), which empties into Timbalier Bay at its northern extremity, the prolongation of which line through the waters of the bay would about equally divide the bay and result in giving the eastern part thereof to the parish of Lafourche and the western part to the parish of Terrebonne.
The averment was made that in that portion of the bay falling on the Lafourche side of the line were valuable oyster beds, which, notwithstanding the previous suit and decision, the defendant parish continued to assert title to and dominion and control over, by claiming the right to issue and by issuing licenses to those who pursue the vocation of oyster fishermen in that part of the bay.
Judgment was asked decreeing the boundary line between that portion of the parishes, as fixed by the final decision of this court, to be a line prolonged from the mouth of Bayou Chene through Timbalier Bay, and awarding all the oyster beds on the east of such line to the plaintiff parish, etc.
In this litigation an attempt was made by defendant to revive and have passed upon anew the same issues raised and decided in the previous litigation twelve years ago. In addition thereto, the answer of the defendant averred that the judgment of this court in the first litigation was an absolute nullity as undertaking to legislate and not to decide.
Plaintiff, insisting on its plea of res judicata as to the boundary line fixed and determined by the judgment of this court in 1882, objected to all evidence tending to reopen that question. Much testimony was, however, admitted covering the whole range of the boundary dispute, the judge a quo holding that the objection went to the effect rather than to the admissibility of the evidence, and bills of exception were taken by plaintiff.
The judgment of the court below was favorable to plaintiff. It was held that an analysis of the pleadings and judgments of the prior litigation demonstrated that, in so far as the boundary line was concerned, the same issues were tried and determined there as are now sought to be raised afresh in the instant case.
Plaintiff's plea of res judicata was sustained.
With regard to defendant's attack upon the final judgment of the first suit it was held that when the only ground of nullity advanced consists in error of decision upon the issues involved, the judgment upon those issues by a competent court operates as a conclusive estoppel between the parties before the court, and that the case at bar comes within that rule.
An appeal was taken by defendant to this court, and, in June, 1896, after full consideration, it was deemed advisable to reverse the judgment and remand the case to the lower court for another trial. Accordingly this was done. In remanding, no instructions were given. See 48 An. 1302.
In February of the present year the case was again tried in the court below on the same issues and evidence, together with additional testimony adduced on behalf of both parties.
Again was it decided in favor of plaintiff, and for the second time it is before us on appeal by defendant.
A full review of the case has brought us to the conclusion that the learned judge of the court below has properly expounded and applied the law that must govern its determination.
The plea of res adjudicata contended for by plai...
To continue reading
Request your trial