State ex rel. Shakespeare v. Duffel
Supreme Court of Louisiana
y^PPLICATIQN for Prohibition and Certiorari. 1. Plaintiffs are at liberty to choose their form of action, but having once made choice, they are hound by their election, and hold to tho law governing tho particular remedy.
Read the full summary
y^PPLICATIQN for Prohibition and Certiorari. 1. Plaintiffs are at liberty to choose their form of action, but having once made choice, they are hound by their election, and hold to tho law governing tho particular remedy. Penn vs. Rearny, Blois & Co., 21 Ann. 23; Conery vs. Clark, 13 Ann. 317; City of How Orleans vs. Paving Co., 20 Ann. 394; Miltenberger vs. Hill, 17 Ann. 58. 2. Petitory and possessory actions cannot be cumulated, and if they be cumulated, the plaintiff shall bo considered as having renounced tho possessory action, and tho judgment shall decide only questions of ownership.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Fenner, J.
The proceedings of the respondent judge, which are assailed in this action as exceeding the bounds of Ms jurisdiction, and *559as null and void for irregularity, may be briefly stated as follows: On the 6th of March, 1889, the commissioners of the first drainage district of Ascension, joined by various land-owners, alleging that Win. J. Kelley and others, owners and occupants of Bocage plantation, liad obstructed and were obstructing a certain public canal which had existed and served as a common drain for the district for more than thirty years,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Moses v. BankerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1868
3Cited by3 opinions
- Board of Com'rs of Petite Anse Drainage Dist. v. Iberia & Vermilion R.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1906
- Liuzza v. SimmsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1923
- Shreveport Mill & Elevator Co. v. StoehrSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1916