State, Dept. of Hwys. v. Jeanerette Lbr. & S. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 July 1976
• Docket Number: Nos. 10743 and 10744,s. 10743 and 10744
• Citation: 335 So.2d 549
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. JEANERETTE LUMBER & SHINGLE COMPANY, LTD. (two cases).
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 549

335 So.2d 549

STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. JEANERETTE LUMBER & SHINGLE COMPANY, LTD. (two cases).

Nos. 10743 and 10744.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

July 6, 1976.

Appeal from 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville; Ian W. Claiborne, Judge.

Before ELLIS, BLANCHE and LOTTINGER, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge (dissenting from the refusal to grant a rehearing).

The court below recognized the authority of the Department of Highways to take a servitude for construction and maintenance of a public highway, but found that the use to be made thereof by the State and the public had to be limited to highway purposes. The Department appealed, contending that the trial court erred in holding that the access canal expropriated was 'not a part of the State highway system', 'not a general public way' and 'not available for use by the general public'.

In our original opinion, we held that, in a proceeding under the quick taking statute, R.S. 48:441 et seq., we could only consider if the taking was for a public purpose, and were without authority to express any limitation as to the extent of the use of the servitude. We held that if the use of the servitude made by the State transcends the limits placed thereon by the law, the matter could only be litigated in a separate proceeding.

However, the issues decided by the trial judge were raised by the pleadings filed below, and were litigated by the parties without objection. I see no reason why we should not now rule on these issues, which for the following reasons, I believe were correctly resolved by the trial judge.

Article 6 Sec. 19.1 of the Constitution of 1921 provides:

'The Legislature shall have authority to authorize the taking of property for highway purposes by orders rendered ex parte in expropriation suits prior to judgment therein provided that provision be made for deposit before such taking with a court officer for the amount of appraisals of the property so taken and damages to which the owner thereof may be entitled, if any, which appraisals may be made in such manner as may be provided by law either before or after institution of suit, and need not be by judicially appointed appraisers.'

R.S. 48:447 provides:

'Any defendant desiring to contest the validity of the taking on the ground that the property was not expropriated for a public use may file a motion to dismiss the suit within ten days from the date the notice was served on him. He shall certify thereon that a copy thereof has been served personally or by mail or either the plaintiff or his attorney of record in the suit. The motion shall be tried contradictorily with the plaintiff.

'Failure to file the motion within the time provided or to serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff constitutes a waiver of all defenses to the suit except claims for compensation.'

The 'Order of Expropriation' provides:

'AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that a permanent servitude of right of way on, over and across the tract or parcel of land described hereinafter is expropriated and taken for highway purposes as of the time of such deposit, according to law. . . .'

The department of Highways is limited in its power to expropriate. It may take, under Art. 6 Section 19.1 for highway purposes. This is the only public use for which it...