New Orleans, Opelousas & G. W. R. R. v. Lagarde
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the District Court of the Parish of Lafourche Interior, Oole, J. The court decided that the jury in estimating the value of the land expropriated could not take into consideration the benefit derived by the owner from the contemplated improvement, but they could take the benefit derived by the owner from the improvement into consideration in assessing the damages, if any, the owner would have sustained.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Parish of Lafourche Interior, Oole, J. The court decided that the jury in estimating the value of the land expropriated could not take into consideration the benefit derived by the owner from the contemplated improvement, but they could take the benefit derived by the owner from the improvement into consideration in assessing the damages, if any, the owner would have sustained. Is the law correctly stated in this instruction? We maintain the affirma-ative. The third section of the Act, (Laws of 1852, p. 91) directs that the jury ■shall find two things :…
1Opinion of the CourtVooriiies, J.
This action is based on the Act entitled “ An Act to provide for the expropriation of lands for railroads and other works of public utility,” approved 8th March, 1852. The plaintiffs allege that they required for the construction of their railroad, a certain portion of the defendant’s land, measure-ing six and seven-tenths acres, as described in a plan annexed to their petition, that they could not agree with the defendant for the price thereof. They therefore pray that said land may be adjudged to them at the value which may be fixed and allowed to the defendant according to law.
The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Murphy v. HusseySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1906
- Louisiana Power and Light Company v. LasseigneLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1969
- State ex rel. Lafitte v. Judge of Division "C,"Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1899