Postal Telegraph Cable Company of Louisiana v. Louisiana Western Railway Company
| Decision Date | 31 May 1897 |
| Docket Number | 12,435 |
| Citation | 22 So. 219,49 La.Ann. 1270 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE COMPANY OF LOUISIANA v. LOUISIANA WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
OPINION
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING.
The object of this suit is to expropriate the use of, or an easement over the defendant's right of way from the town of Lafayette in this State to the Sabine river, a distance of one hundred and five and forty-one one-hundredth miles, as being necessary for the use of the plaintiff in the establishment and operation of its line of telegraph along the route of the defendant's railroad track.
Our opinion holds that plaintiff has the legal right to make such an expropriation, without disturbing the fee of defendant's title; and increased the jury's award of damages so as to allow the defendant the sum of two thousand one hundred dollars, the award of the jury having been fixed at eight dollars and fifty cents per mile, equal, approximately, to eight hundred and ninety-two dollars and fifty cents.
The opinion made reference to the case of Postal Telegraph and Cable Company of Louisiana vs. Morgan's Louisiana and Texas Railroad and Steamship Company, 49 An. 58, in which the same plaintiff instituted proceedings to obtain a similar condemnation of the right of easement for its line of telegraph along the route of the defendant's track from the city of New Orleans to the town of Lafayette; and it treated the instant suit as one for the extension of its line from Lafayette to the Sabine river.
It attracted attention to the fact that the jury, in the case cited, awarded the defendant fifty-four dollars per mile, and that same was approved by the judgment of this court on appeal.
In this application, the plaintiff's counsel complain (1) that this court improperly exercised the prerogative of amending and increasing the amount awarded by the jury; (2) that some explanation should be made of the grounds on which our opinion proceeds in making an increased allowance.
In the first place, we at once recognize the full force of the decisions quoted in counsel's brief, to the effect that a jury of freeholders in matters of eminent domain possess, in a limited sense, the character of experts, and that their verdict has that authority in a general sense; and, that such is the jurisprudence of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial