Guy v. McDuffie
Guy v. McDuffie, 49 So. 222 (La. 1909).
Cited by
- Vidrine v. American Employers Ins. Co. 129 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
- Rouyer v. Horil 79 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
- City of New Orleans v. Peterson 77 So. 2d 730 La. 1955
- State Ex Rel. Blocker v. Simmons 169 So. 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Hill v. De Soto Parish School Board 148 So. 248 La. 1933
- Steckler v. Spicuzza 132 So. 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
- Gardiner v. Erskine 127 So. 604 La. 1929
- Jeter Paint Store v. Singlust 121 So. 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
- Brenard Mfg. Co. v. Clawson Mercantile Co. 120 So. 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
- Marsh v. Avegno 3 La. App. 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
- Mauberret v. Mauberret 105 So. 6 La. 1925
- Alexandria Cooperage Co. v. Railroad Commission 54 So. 359 La. 1911
Opinion text
On the Merits. Appellants have made no appearance in this court. Appeal is a mode of revising final judgments, and it is the duty of the appellant to point out the errors to his prejudice in the proceedings below. In the absence of assignment or suggestion of error, the appellate court is justified in presuming that the judgment appealed from is correct. The plaintiffs have joined in the appeal, and have prayed for an amendment of the judgment in respect to damages. The land in dispute is in the bed of Olear Lake, and within the proven oil field of Oaddo parish. Plaintiffs derive their title through mesne conveyance from the state of Louisiana. Defendants filed and recorded affidavits of the location of mineral claims on the same land. Plaintiffs allege damages by reason thereof in a sum exceeding $2,000. The most that can be said, on the evidence, is that the filing of the mineral claims prevented plaintiffs from selling the land at a profit. But the same evidence shows that the land is steadily increasing in value, and it therefore cannot be said that the plaintiffs have as yet suffered any real damage. Judgment affirmed.