Milne v. Girodeau
Milne v. Girodeau, 12 La. 324 (1838).
Cited by
- Todd v. State Through Dept. of Natural Res. 456 So. 2d 1340 La. 1984
- Gulf Oil Corporation v. State Mineral Board 317 So. 2d 576 La. 1975
- State v. Placid Oil Company 300 So. 2d 154 La. 1974
- State v. Placid Oil Company 274 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
- Stevens v. State Mineral Board 233 So. 2d 542 La. 1970
- Coastal States Gas Producing Co. v. State Mineral Bd. 199 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
- State v. Cenac 132 So. 2d 928 La. 1961
- A. K. Roy, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners 111 So. 2d 765 La. 1959
- Miami Corporation v. State 173 So. 315 La. 1936
- New Orleans Land Co. v. Board of Levee Com'rs 132 So. 121 La. 1930
- Bruning v. City of New Orleans 115 So. 733 La. 1926
- Sapp v. Frazier 26 So. 378 La. 1899
Opinion text
Carleton, J., delivered the opinion-of the court. This is a petitory action brought for- the recovery of a lot of ground in the town, of Milneburg, at the end of the rail road, on lake Pontchartrain, composed, according to the plan of that town, of a part of lots 1 and 2, in square No. 1, being sixty feet front on Champes Elyssées street, and extending in depth one hundred and twenty feet, and fronting on the American wharf. The defendant, who is in possession of the lot, avers, in his answer, that it makes a part of the sea shore, is common property, and that plaintiff cannot have'the ownership thereof. There was judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed. It appears to us that the testimony shows fully, the ground in question, lies much below high water mark, and forms part of the bed of the lake, and is not, therefore, susceptible of piivate owneiship. Louisiana Code, articles 440, 1. 2. 3 and 4. Where the petition claiming certain lots of ground, is silent on the subject of defendant’s buildings being a nuisance, the plaintiff cannot demand its a-balement. But the counsel for plaintiff insists, that the buildings erected on thé lot by the defendant, are a nuisance, and ought to be abated under a decree of the court, in the present case. The judgment of the District Court being against him on this point also, he has urged its consideration before this tribunal. We concur, however, in opinion, with the court below. The petition is silent upon the subject of the nuisance, and we think it would be altogether anomalous, and produce much confusion, if the parties were permitted to raise and settle controversies by argument, which had no relation to the pleadings in the cause. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.