State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Dodge
Also decided on this docket: La., June 15, 1891 43 La. Ann. 873; La., July 15, 1885 37 La. Ann. 709; La., June 15, 1868 20 La. 499; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., October 27, 1964 168 So. 2d 430; La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., February 3, 1964 160 So. 2d 340
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Dodge, 166 So. 2d 286 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964).
Cited by
- State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Ponder 342 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
- State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Holmes 205 So. 2d 416 La. 1967
- State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Holmes 194 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Rownd 119 So. 2d 282
Opinion text
TATE, Judge. The plaintiff Department expropriated defendant’s property under the “quick-taking” statute, LSA-R.S. 48:441-48:460. The defendant landowner contested the amount of compensation deposited, and the trial court increased the award. The plaintiff Department devolutively appeals such increase. The defendant landowner moves to dismiss the appeal. The landowner contends that the Department unconditionally acquiesced in the judgment by depositing into court the additional amount awarded. The defendant-appellee relies upon LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2085, which pertinently provides: “An appeal cannot be taken by a party * * * who voluntarily and unconditionally acquiesced in a judgment rendered against him * * The former Orleans Court of Appeal has previously rejected similar contentions by a defendant landowner seeking to dismiss an appeal by the Department. State through Department of Highways v. Rownd, La.App.Orl., 119 So.2d 282 , certiorari denied. In this decision, the court pointed out that the “quick-taking” expropriation statute contemplated a devolu-tive appeal only, as in other expropriation-suits. Since a suspensive appeal is prohibited, LSA-R.S. 19:13, LSA-Civil Code-Article 2634, the Department was under a. statutory duty to deposit the additional amount awarded, when taking a devolutive appeal. The court concluded that therefore-the deposit of the award into court did not amount to a voluntary acquiescence in the-judgment rendered against such party, such as would bar a further appeal. We agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Orleans court. Accordingly,, the defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss-the appeal is denied. Motion to dismiss appeal denied.