Case ID: la_212/html/0444-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWTHORNE, Justice. FOURNET, Justice O’NIELL, Chief Justice BOND, Justice. McCALEB, Justice HAWTHORNE, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

33 So.2d 671
    ST. MARTIN PARISH POLICE JURY v. IBERVILLE PARISH POLICE JURY.
    No. 38126.
    April 21, 1947.
    On Rehearing Dec. 15, 1947.
    
      Ferd C. Claiborne, Dist. Atty., of New Roads, and Obier & Middleton, of Plaque-mine, for defendant-appellant.
    L. O. Pecot, Dist. Atty., of Franklin, Minos Armentor, Asst. Dist. Atty., of New Iberia, and Guidry & Willis, of St. Martinville, for plaintiff-appellee.
   HAWTHORNE, Justice.

This is an action to have ascertained and determined judicially the location of the boundary line between the Parishes of St. Martin and Iberville, and the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville has appealed from a judgment of the district court locating the boundary line as contended by the Police Jury of the Parish of St. Martin and decreeing the lands or area between the disputed lines to be situated wholly within the Parish of St. Martin.

The Police Jury for the Parish of St. Martin instituted this suit against the Police .Jury for the Parish of Iberville, alleging that both the Parish of St. Martin and the Parish of Iberville were created by Act No. 1 of 1807, and that the boundary line between these parishes was fixed and established by Act No. 130 of 1847; that under Section 2 of this act the true and correct boundary line between St. Martin and Iberville Parishes to the east and northeast of St. Martin Parish, extending from Whiskey Bay (Osea or Oski Bay) running north and - northwest to the south line of Township 6 South, Range 8 East, the south boundary of Pointe Coupee Parish, is now, and since 1847 has been, in the middle or thread of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from its mouth in Whiskey Bay up to its intersection with the south boundary line of Pointe Coupee Parish; that all the lands to the •south and west of this alleged boundary line lie within the Parish of St. Martin, and those north and east thereof in the Parish •of Iberville.

Plaintiff allege® that, notwithstanding the law defining and. fixing this boundary, the Parish of Iberville is arbitrarily and without warrant in law claiming as the boundary “a line commencing at a point .about three miles north of the mouth of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama in the southeast corner of Sec. 60 T. 8 S. R. 8 E., following said south line of Sec. 60 to the back line thereof, said line thence running north, northeast, north, northwest following the back lines of Secs. 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40 and 39 in T. 8 S. R. 8 East and following the back lines of Secs. 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 93 all in T. 7 S. R. 8 East, to a point where it intersects the Township line between T. 6 S. R. 8 East and T. 7 S. R. 8 E. about four and one-half miles west of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama”; that the boundary line as claimed by defendant is erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the proper legal interpretation of Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847; that between the two lines there is an area comprising approximately 10,432.44 acres, and that all of these lands lie to the south and west of, and are situated entirely on the west bank of, the East Fork of Bayou Alabama; that the bed or channel of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama exists today as it did in the year 1847, that no material change since that year has taken place in the channel or course of that bayou, and that it has always been and is at the present time a navigable stream.

It is alleged that the Police Jury of St. Martin Parish pursuant to the provisions of Section 2624 of the Revised' Statutes of 1870, Section 6356, Dart’s Statutes, on February 19,1919, adopted an ordinance for the purpose of ascertaining and fixing the boundary line between the Parish of St. Martin and the Parish of Iberville, and by ordinance appointed Charles Gutekunst, civil engineer, as its surveyor, to meet on September 8, 1919, the surveyor to be appointed by Iberville Parish. The petition alleges a full compliance with Section 2624 of the Revised Statutes of 1870 except that it does not allege that due return of the proces verbal and map of the surveyor of the Parish of St. Martin was made to the presidents of the police juries of both parishes, or that plaintiff has caused the map and proces verbal to be filed and preserved in the offices of the recorders of these parishes as required by law.

The petition further alleges that the Parish of St. Martin is entitled to have the survey of Charles Gutekunst, filed on December 1, 1919, recognized as being officially correct and as correctly fixing and describing the boundary line between the parishes, and, further, that a proper and legal interpretation of Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847 establishes the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin Parishes in the middle or thread of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from its mouth in Whiskey Bay running north and then northwest to the south boundary line of Pointe Coupee Parish, and that all lands west and south of the line are situated wholly within the Parish of St. Martin.

The defendant, Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville, first filed a plea of prematurity aimed at the fact that plaintiff had failed to allege in its petition due return of the proces verbal and map made by. Charles Gutekunst. Thereafter plaintiff amended its petition to show a full compliance with Section 2624 of the Revised Statutes of 1870, and, when this amended petition was filed, the plea of prematurity passed out of the case.

To plaintiff’s petition defendant, Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville, filed an answer, admitting that Iberville Parish was created by virtue of Act No. 1 of 1807, and that the boundary line between that parish and the Parish of St. Martin was fixed and established by Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847; that the boundary line between the two parishes which plaintiff’s petition alleges defendant is contending for, and as described in the petition, is the true and correct boundary line.

Defendant’s answer denies all material allegations of the petition, particularly those with reference to the survey made by Charles Gutekunst pursuant to Section 2624 of the Revised Statutes of 1870, and alleges that the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin is, and has since 1847 been, recognized as including within the Parish of Iberville all of the lands lying between the disputed boundary lines, and that all of these lands are shown to lie within the Parish of Iberville by various maps and surveys, all filed in evidence.

Defendant avers that the lands have always been assessed, taxes paid thereon, and muniments of title thereto recorded in the Parish of Iberville, and have been recognized by all persons owning lands situated in this area to be in the Parish of Iberville; that the Police Jury and public officials of the Parish of St. Martin have since 1847 recognized these lands to be within the Parish of Iberville; that following a conference between the officials of these two parishes the officials of the Parish of St. Martin acquiesced in the correctness qf the boundary line between the parishes as contended for by defendant, and pursuant thereto the Police Jury for the Parish! of Iberville on August 1, 1910, passed a resolution declaring and fixing the boundary line in dispute, and that for all of these reasons the Parish of St. Martin and its officials are estopped from now questioning the correctness of the establishing of said line.

The case was submitted to the district court on an agreed statement of facts and exhibits. The trial court rendered judgment decreeing and fixing the boundary line as contended for by the Parish of St. Martin, and decreeing the lands or area between the disputed lines to be situated wholly in the Parish of St. Martin. From this judgment defendant, Police Jury for the Parish of Iberville, has appealed to this court.

On the map made by Charles Gutekunst, civil engineer, on December 1, 1919, filed in evidence, plaintiff and defendant have stipulated that they hava superimposed a red line showing the boundary line contended for by the Police Jury for the Parish of Iberville. This boundary line is fully described in plaintiff’s petition, as set out hereinabove. We have attached to this opinion 'a photostatic copy of this map, and for clarity have designated thereon the boundary line contended for by the Parish of Iberville by the letters “A-B-C”, and the line contended for by the Parish of St.Martin (which runs up the middle or thread of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from the southeast corner of Section 60 to the township line between Townships 6 and 7 South, Range 8 East) by the letters “A-D”.

An examination of this map discloses that only a portion of the boundary line as fixed and defined in Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847 is in dispute, being that portion which is described in the act as “thence following the said branch [the East Fork of Bayou Alabama], including the inhabitants of both sides thereof, upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupée”. (All italics ours.)

The title to Act No. 130 of 1847 reads as follows: “AN ACT To define the boundary line between the parishes of Iberville and Ascension, and the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin.”

Section 1 of the act fixes the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and Ascension. Section 2 establishes the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin, reading thus: “Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, &c., That the line between the parishes of Iberville and St. Martin shall begin at a point where the line between townships eleven and twelve strikes the Atchafalaya commonly called Grand River, or Old River, on its western bank, west of and near Lake Natchez; thence running west along said township line until the same strikes the eastern branch of Bayou Pigeon; thence along the middle of said Bayou, and mid-die-of little Bayou Pigeon to the north of Cross Bayou; thence along the nviddle of Cross Bayou to its junction with Lake Long, commonly called Murphy’s Lake; thence through said lake to a point on its western shore, three miles north of said township line; thence west parallel therewith to lake Chicot; thence along the eastern border of said lake Chicot to the main eastern navigable entrance into Bayou Sorel Bay; thence northwardly along the middle of said entrance or pass, and bayou Sorel Bay to the upper Bayou Pigeon; thence along the middle thereof, northwardly to its junction with the Atchafalaya, called Grand River; thence along the middle of Grand River to Oski Bay;: thence through the middle thereof to the eastern branch of the bayou Alabama; thence following the said branch, including the inhabitants of both sides thereof, upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupée; the portion north and east of said line to belong to the parish of Iberville, and south and west to the parish of St. Martin.”

It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction, well settled in law, that it is the duty of the court to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the statute, and that in construing the statute all parts thereof should be construed together and each part or section should be construed in connection with every other part or section, as the ultimate object is to reach the legislative intent. Reynolds v. Baldwin, 1 La. Ann. 162; Louisi-Western R. Co. v. Village of Duson, 146 La. 190, 83 So. 455; State ex rel., Lyons v. Democratic State Central Committee et al., 165 La. 531, 115 So. 740; Houghton v. Hall, 177 La. 237, 148 So. 37; 2 Sutherland Statutory Construction (Plorack’s Third Edition), Section 4703, page 336.

It is equally well settled that the court must give effect to all parts of a statute, if possible, and construe no sentence, clause, or word as meaningless and as sur • plusage if construction giving force to, and preserving, all words can legitimately be found, and the court should construe an expression in a statute so as to give it effect rather than to render it meaningless in respect to context. Clark et al. v. Morse, 16 La. 575; State v. Fontenot, 112 La. 628, 36 So. 630; State v. Mestayer, 144 La. 601, 80 So. 891; State v. Texas Co. et al., 205 La. 417, 17 So.2d 569; 2 Sutherland Statutory Construction (Horack’s Third Edition), Section 4705, page 339.

The clause “thence following the said branch, including the inhabitants of both sides thereof, upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupée” is certainly ambiguous, and it has been difficult for us to determine the true intent and meaning of the Legislature in placing it in the act. It is a very indefinite call to be found in a boundary description. We are convinced, however, that the Legislature included these words in the statute for some definite purpose, and that they cannot be declared meaningless if we can give them a reasonable interpretation.

It is to be noted that in fixing the boundary line the Legislature, in every other instance when a bayou, bay, or river constituted a part of the boundary, used the expression “thence along (or through) the middle of” said bayou or other watercourse, until the description of the line reached the East Fork of Bayou Alabama. At this point the Legislature changed its terminology and, instead of repeating “thence along (or through) the middle thereof”, used the expression “thence following the said branch, including the inhabitants of both sides thereof”. We do not think that anyone can question the fact that, when the East Fork of Bayou Alabama was reached in the description, the Legislature had some definite and fixed reason for departing from the phraseology used to describe the course of the boundary along or through the middle of the various other watercourses. Otherwise the same language and identical words could and would have been used as had been employed before in the act, and the description of this part of the boundary would have read “thence along the middle of said branch”. It is clear to us that the Legislature did not intend that the middle of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama was to be the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin.

The acts of 1847, passed by the Legislature over a hundred years ago, were published both in English and in French. The clause “thence following the said branch, including the inhabitants of both sides thereof, upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupee” appears in the French text as “de la, elle suivra la dite branche des deux cotés y compris les habitations, jusqu’au dessus de la ligne de township entre les townships six et sept, ou la limite sud de la paroisse Pointe Coupee.”

The writer of this opinion has obtained a translation of this French clause into English 'by competent and qualified French scholars, which translation reads as follows: “thence it [the line] shall follow the aforesaid fork including the plantations on both sides, as far up as the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the Parish of Pointe Coupée”.

This translation of the French text discloses that it is not so ambiguous and uncertain as the English text. As pointed out in the case of Parish of Lafourche v. Parish of Terrebonne, 34 La. Ann. 1230, we have not lost sight of the rule of our jurisprudence that, when the two texts differ, the English text must prevail, but that, “ ‘when a law, written in the language of the Constitution is doubtful, the sense in which the members of our Legislature, who at that time spoke French understood it, may be safely called to our assistance to explain what is uncertain’

We concede it to be true that it is very difficult to define or establish a boundary line so as to include the inhabitants on both sides of a watercourse. But this is not true with respect to the plantations located on both sides of such a watercourse, as these are definite areas and can be ascertained with certainty at the time, or shortly after, an act is adopted containing such a course or call.

The fact that the Legislature changed its phraseology shows that it was its intention not to establish the boundary along the middle or thread of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama. We therefore conclude that it was the intention of the Legislature to follow said fork or branch upward so as to include the plantations on both sides thereof within either the Parish of Iberville or the Parish of St. Martin.

In our efforts to throw some light on this complex problem, we have examined the journals of both the House and the Senate of 1847 for the history of Act No. 130 of that year.

According to these records, on March 9, 1847, a Mr. Templet presented to the House of Representatives two memorials of certain inhabitants of the Parish of Iberville relative to the division line between the Parishes of Ascension and Iberville. These memorials were referred to the Committee on Parochial Affairs. On March 12 the chairman of that committee, pursuant to these memorials, reported the following bill: “An act to establish the boundary line between the parishes of Iberville and Ascension." The bill went through its first, second, and third readings, and passed with its title.

On March 12, 1847, the assistant clerk of the House requested the concurrence of the Senate in certain bills, among these being “An act to establish the boundary line between the parishes of Iberville and Ascension”. On March 17 this bill underwent its first reading in the Senate. On March 25 on motion of Mr. Kenner the rules were suspended, and the Senate took up “An act to establish the boundary line between the parishes of Iberville and Ascension”. This bill then underwent its second reading in the Senate and was, on motion of Mr. Adams, amended and adopted as amended. On motion of Mr. Kenner the rules were again suspended, and the bill underwent its third reading and passed as amended. On motion of Mr. Adams the title of the bill was then amended by adding at its end the words “and the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin”. On motion the title was adopted as thus amended.

On March 26 the House of Representatives was informed of the concurrence of the Senate with amendment to title and body of “An act to establish the boundary line between the parishes of Iberville and Ascension, and the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin”, and on March 29 the bill was read and postponed. On April 6, Mr. Derbes moved to strike out that portion annexing a portion of the Parish of St. Martin to the Parish of Ascension. This motion was lost. Thereupon Mr. Williams moved to concur in the amendments, and on adoption of this motion it was carried by a yea and nay vote, and the amendments of the Senate were concurred in, and the clerk was directed to inform the Senate of this fact.

Mr. Kenner, who was mentioned in the Senate entry of March. 25, 1847, and on whose motion the rules were suspended and the bill read and taken up, was Mr. Duncan F. Kenner, senator from the Parish of Ascension. It is significant that the Mr. Adams who is mentioned in the same senate entry, and who made the motion to amend the bill and place therein Section 2 which defines the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin, and on whose motion the title was also amended by adding the words “and the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin”, was Mr. Christopher Adams, senator from the Parishes of Iberville and West Baton Rouge.

The Senate and the House journals clearly disclose that the act which we are now considering had its inception or beginning as a result of two memorials presented to the Legislature of that year by inhabitants of Iberville Parish, and was primarily steered through the Senate by the Iberville Parish senator, on whose motion the title and body of the bill were amended to fix the boundary between Iberville and St. Martin Parishes. If the senator and the representative who represented the Parish of St. Martin in the Senate and the House were present and took any interest in the passage of the bill, the journals fail to disclose this fact.

The title to the act is divided into two parts, the first to define the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and Ascension, and the second the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin, and the act had for its purpose to establish these boundary lines primarily between the Parish of Iberville and the adjoining Parishes of Ascension and St. Martin, or, in other words, the act deals primarily with the Parish of Iberville.

With these facts in mind, considering the act’s inception as a result of memorials from residents of Iberville Parish, and the fact that it was steered through the Senate by the senator who represented that parish, we believe that, by the use of the words “thence following the said branch, including the inhabitants of both sides thereof, upwards to the township line”, the Legislature intended that the plantations on both sides of the bayou were to be included in the Parish of Iberville.

We are supported in this view by subsequent events which occurred during a period of some 40 or 50 years after the date of the act.

Defendant has filed in the record a photostatic copy of a map showing the area in controversy, that is, a part of Powell’s map of the Parishes of Pointe Coupee, West Baton Rouge, and Iberville and parts of St. Martin and Ascension, approved by William J. McCullough, surveyor general of the State of Louisiana, in 1858, or 11 years after the adoption of the statute; copies of township maps or plats of Townships 7 and 8 South, Range 8 East, approved by John Lynch, surveyor general of the State of Louisiana, in 1870, the originals of said maps being filed in the archives of the clerk and recorder of the Parish of Iberville since 1877 or earlier, and were no doubt procured by the Police Jury of Iberville Parish pursuant to the provisions of Section 31 of Act No. 42 of 1871, which made it the duty of the police jury of each parish to procure at the expense of the parish from the original records of the United States surveys a correct map, properly authenticated, of each and every township and part thereof contained in such parish, which maps were to be deposited with the recorder and made accessible to the parish surveyor in making surveys and to the tax collector in preparing assessment rolls; Dickinson’s map of 1883, made pursuant to a resolution of the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville and covering the Parish of Iberville, most of West Baton Rouge, and parts of St. Martin, Ascension, and Pointe Coupee Parishes; copy of Hardee’s official map of the State of Louisiana of 1895, made pursuant to Act No. 143 of 1894, which provided for an official map of the State of Louisiana to be made by William Joseph Hardee and to be recorded in the state offices and with each parish, and, further, that this map should show “bayous and other watercourses, all removals of parish seats, all new parishes and corrected parish boundaries, * * * compiled from latest and most authentic private and public and government surveys * *

All of these maps without exception show the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin to be as contended by defendant-appellant, the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville, and conclusively prove that for a period of approximately 50 years, from the adoption of the act in 1847 to the year 1895, the boundary line between these parishes was at no time considered to be up the middle of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from the southeast corner of Section 60, Township 8 South, Range 8 East, to the township line between Townships 6 and 7 South, Range 8 East, or the south line of Pointe Coupee Parish.

In addition to these maps we find in the record a copy of Thomas S. Hardee’s 1871 official map of the State of Louisiana, made pursuant to Act No. 166 of 1868. This map does not show any sections thereon, and we are unable to follow the parish boundary line with any degree of certainty. However, it appears that the map shows the line between these parishes to be somewhat farther west than contended by the defendant herein, but it does conclusively show that the maker of this map did not consider the East Fork of Bayou Alabama to be the boundary line between them.

When the Legislature by Act No. 130 of 1847 fixed and defined the boundary line between these two parishes, it exercised a legislative function. The interpretation of this statute is a judicial function, and we realize and concede that the map compilers could not legally fix or establish any boundary other than that defined and called for by the act. We are of the opinion, however, that the map makers who compiled and made the maps discussed hereinabove, at or near the time when the act was passed, may reasonably be supposed to be better acquainted than their descendants with the true intent and object of the Legislature in using the ambiguous clause which is the cause of this controversy, and, when they marked and fixed the line on these maps as now contended for by appellant, they must have had good reason to believe that they were doing what the Legislature intended them to do.

Although the act was passed over 100 years ago, so far as the evidence in the record shows the Gutekunst survey of 1919, made 72 years after the adoption of the act, was the first to establish and show the boundary line to be up the middle of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from Whiskey Bay to the township line. To accept this survey it would be necessary for us to delete from the act and comletely ignore that part of it which includes the inhabitants or plantations on both sides of the bayou in one parish or the other and to give no effect whatsoever to this clause — a clause which we think was deliberately and designedly placed in the act and which has a reasonable meaning and interpretation.

Appellee contends that under this ambiguous clause the Parish of St. Martin would have as much right to claim the irregular sections fronting on the east ■bank of the bayou as the Parish of Iberville has to claim those situated on the west bank thereof. This may be true, but it is significant to us that for a period of almost 100 years the authorities of St. Martin Parish have made no such claim and have seen fit to ignore the clause, while on the other hand the authorities of the Parish of Iberville have construed the phrase so as to include the irregular sections on the west bank of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama in Iberville Parish and have contended that it was the true intent and object of the Legislature that these sections be included within the boundaries of that parish.

In the record there is an affidavit of Joseph A. Grace, clerk of court for the Parish of Iberville from 1892 to 1926, in which he swears that in the summer of 1910 the district attorney from the judicial district of which St. Martin Parish is a part and a committee of police jurors of that parish came to the Parish of Iberville for the purpose of discussing, settling, and fixing the boundary between these parishes, and that, after a discussion with the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville and after examining records, including township maps, Dickinson’s map, and the Hardee maps, the district attorney and the committee from St. Martin Parish advised the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville that the disputed area lying west of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama was really within the Parish of Iberville, and agreed that, if the Police Jury of Iberville Parish would pass a resolution designating the boundary as fixed by these maps, the district attorney and the committee would advise the Police Jury of the Parish of St. Martin to pass a similar resolution.

Both plaintiff and defendant admit that, if Joseph A. Grace were sworn as a witness, he would testify in accordance with this affidavit, but counsel for plaintiff do not admit that the facts stated in the affidavit are relevant or have any probative value. In brief they point out, and we think correctly so, that this committee had no authority to abandon and release any rights of the Parish of St. Martin. However, the record discloses that on August 1, 1910, the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville acted in accordance with the facts shown in the affidavit and adopted a resolution fixing the boundary line between the two parishes by the various maps herein-above discussed, and this is the line which defendant now claims is the true and' correct one.

It is also true that on August 8, 1910, the Police Jury of the Parish of St. Martin met and received the report of the committee appointed to confer with the Police Jury of Iberville Parish relative to the boundary line between these parishes, and the proceedings of this meeting show that final action in the premises was deferred, and the committee was discharged with thanks.

We concede that the action of this committee could not define and establish the boundary line, the fixing of which, as we have pointed out, was strictly a legislative function. Nevertheless its actions indicate that the committee itself accepted the interpretation placed by the Parish of Iberville on the ambiguous clause contained in the act so as to fix the boundary line as contended for by the authorities of that parish.

Under a resolution of the Police Jury of St. Martin Parish, adopted February 19, 1919, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2624 of the Revised Statutes of 1870, a survey of the area in dispute was made by Charles Gutekunst, surveyor and civil engineer, and it is this survey which shows the boundary fixed by Act No. 130 of 1847 to be along the middle of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama up to the township line, and is the survey on which appellee relies as being a true and correct interpretation of the act of the Legislature.

Following this survey, on August 5, 1920, the Police Jury of the Parish of St. Martin instituted suit against the Police Jury of Iberville Parish to have this survey recognized and approved. Defendant in that suit, Police Jury of Iberville Parish, filed an exception of no cause or right of action. This suit was dismissed on plaintiff’s motion on March 10, 1941, some 21 years after it was filed, no further steps having been taken therein in the meantime.

In its answer to the present suit, defendant, Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville, denies service upon it of the ordinance of the Police Jury of St. Martin Parish, adopted February 19, 1919. In the stipulation of facts it is admitted that the records of the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin do not show that the Gutekunst map of 1919 and the proces verbal -thereof were filed with the president of the Police Jury of Iberville Parish prior to the institution of the present suit.

We find in the record photostatic copies of patents from the State of Louisiana and a certificate of the register of the State Land Office' showing patents as having been issued by the state to every section (except two or three) of land in the disputed area, or on the west bank of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama. These patents in every instance where the parish in which the land is situated is named designate the land described as being in the Parish of Iberville, and the other patents do not name or designate any parish whatsoever. It is therefore evident that the State Land Office interpreted Act No. 130 of 1847 as placing these lands in the Parish of Iberville.

According to the stipulation of fact, the greater portion of the deeds, transfers, and muniments of title affecting the lands in the area in controversy, probably as much as 85 per cent thereof, are recorded independently and only in the Parish of Iberville, while some of the deeds, transfers, and muniments of title affecting these lands, probably 15 per cent thereof, are recorded in the Parish of St. Martin. This clearly indicates to us that the majority of the property owners in the disputed area were of the opinion and belief that the property which they owned was situated in the Parish of Iberville.

It is also true that property in the disputed area has been assessed in both parishes, that tax sales of lands in this area have taken place in both parishes, and that in the records of the Parish of St. Martin there is a book of entries, “Abstract Record Parish of St. Martin”, certified by John S. Lanier, register, State Land Office, and that this record includes abstracts of entries to every section of land in the disputed area except two sections and a fractional part of one other. We do not, however, find any patents in the record showing the lands in controversy to be situated in the Parish of St. Martin.

Plaintiff has offered in evidence an official map of Louisiana, approved January 12, 1938, compiled by the Board of State Engineers by the authority of Act No. 159 of 1928, and also quadrangle map, edition of 1935, by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The 1938 official map of the State of Louisiana shows the boundary line between these two parishes as contended for by plaintiff. However, we do not think that this map is of very much value in deciding this controversy when weighed with the numerous other earlier maps discussed hereinabove, all of which support the contention of defendant. The quadrangle map plainly states thereon that the boundary line between these two parishes is in litigation.

Since the Powell map of 1858, the township maps covering the area in controversy, certified by John Lynch in 1870, Dickinson’s map of 1883, and the Plardee map of 1895, the Legislature of this state has been in session many, many times, and, though eách of these maps indicates the boundary line between these parishes to be as contended for by the Police Jury of the Parish of- Iberville, the Legislature during all this period of dime has never indicated by, any act that the map makers in compiling, these maps did not correctly interpret Act No. 130 of 1847, or that the line as set out on these maps was not the correct line as called for in the act.

After a careful consideration of the entire record, we are of the opinion that the boundary contended for by the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville is the boundary as defined and fixed in Act No. 130 of 1847, and that said boundary line is the one within the object and intention of the Legislature of that year.

Similar questions have arisen in our sister states, and we find the following expressions from the courts of Ohio and Virginia :

“The condition of things at the time the law was passed, the surroundings and circumstances calling for the law, the manner in which it was received and interpreted by those who were affected by the law, are weighty, evidentiary facts in determining the meaning and intention of the legislature as expressed by the law.
íjí ^ ‡ 5k Sfc *
“Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, say [says] in section 357, Tt is said that the best exposition of a statute or any other document is, that which it has received from cotemporary authority. Where this has been by enactment or judicial decision, it is, of course, to be accepted as conclusive. But further, the meaning publicly given by cotemporary or long professional usage, is presumed to be the true one, even when the language has etimologically or popularly a different meaning. Those who lived at or near the time when it was passed may reasonably be supposed to be better acquainted than their descendants, with the circumstances to which it had relation as well as with the sense then attached to the legislative expression and the long acquiescence in the interpretation put upon its enactment by notorious practice, may perhaps be regarded as some sanction and approval of it. It gives the sense of community of the terms made use of by the legislature. If there is ambiguity in the language, the understanding and application of it, when the statute first comes into operation sanctioned by long acquiescence on the part of the legislature and judicial tribunals, is the strongest evidence that it has been rightly explained in practice.’ ” Commissioners of Warren County v. Commissioners of Butler County, 6 Ohio Dec. 536.

“And the court is further of opinion that in determining the territorial boundaries specified in said acts due weight should be given to the cotemporaneous interpretation placed upon the same by the courts and other lawful authorities within the same and by the population at large residing therein; and that maps of such territory made out or published by authority of law may properly be referred to as persuasive evidence in support of the pretensions of either party to have such weight as consistently with the other testimony in the cause they shall appear to be entitled to.” Hamilton v. McNeil et al., 13 Grat., Va., 389.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin, starting at Whiskey Bay, is judicially determined and located pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847, as follows: Along the middle of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama to the southeast corner of Section 60, Township 8 South, Range 8 East; thence following the south line of said Section 60 to the back line thereof; thence running north, northeast, north, northwest, following the back or west lines of Sections 60, 59, 58, 57, 56,1 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45,' 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, and 39, in Township 8 South, Range 8 East, and following the back or west lines of Sections 34, 33, 32, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 74, 52, 93, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, and 36, in Township 7 South, Range 8 East, to a point where it intersects the township line between Township 6 South, Range 8 East, and Township 7 South, Range 8 East, or the southern boundary of the Parish of Pointe Coupee, as shown on the Powell map of 1858.

All costs insofar as are allowed by law . are to be paid by appellee, Police Jury of the Parish of St. Martin.

FOURNET, Justice

(dissenting).

The General Assembly of the State of Louisiana by its Act No. 130 of 1847 defined the boundary line between the parishes of Iberville and St. Martin with precision and certainty until the line struck the eastern branch of Bayou Alabama. However, the italicized clause in the provision following, “thence following the said branch, in-chiding the inhabitants of both sides thereof upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the Parish of Pointe Coupee, gives rise to the different interpretations sought by each of the parishes as explained in the majority opinion. (Italics mine.)

This clause is meaningless and, in my opinion, impossible of any reasonable interpretation. I cannot conceive of any logical or reasonable construction that it can be given in the light of the object of the act.

From my appreciation of the French text, which is not only at variance with the English text in the particulars pointed out in the majority opinion but also with respect to the point from which the line in controversy should begin (in the English text the point begins at the eastern branch of Bayou Alabama whereas in the French text it begins at the western branch, a point entirely out of line with the other calls), the matter is not clarified for it is inconceivable to me how a reasonable interpretation of this clause as reflected by the French text, could result in the running of the line in the manner provided for in the majority opinion.

There is nothing in the definition that even remotely authorizes the following of the branch of Bayou Alabama up to the point designated as A on the map and then permits it to suddenly (and without suggestion of any kind from the language used in the act) depart from the said.branch in a northerly and westerly direction and to follow what seems to be the southern boundary of irregular Section 60 to point B on the map; to from there follow what appears to be the western boundary of a series of similar irregular sections some distance from the said branch to a point where these irregular sections spread out fan-shape and to then arbitrarily select the southern boundary of irregular Section 74 up to where it strikes the main fork of Bayou Alabama as the place where the line is to be run and from thence to the center of the main fork of Bayou Alabama; to then follow the middle of this bayou in a northeasterly direction to the point that when projected strikes the southern boundary of Sections 52 and 93; to then follow the southern and western boundaries of a series of irregular sections until it strikes a range line at a point where the southern boundary of irregular Section 36 meets with it and then proceed due north from there to point C on the map, where this strikes the southern boundary of Pointe Coupee Parish.

I do not think the general assembly, that had so carefully delineated the boundary up to the point in controversy with precision and certainty, intended to leave the remainder in so much uncertainty, particularly in view of the numerous landmarks that were so easily available and could have been used had it been that body’s intention that the course would be as laid down in the majority opinion.

We should not resort to such a strained construction if there is one that is more reasonable and in keeping with the language used that can be given the statute, particularly when to give it such a construction at the same time gives effect to the entire text of the act.

From my translation of the French text this clause reads in English thusly: “ * * * from there it (said line) shall follow the said branch (east branch of Bayou Alabama), the two sides thereof comprising the habitations (plantations), as far up -as the township line between township six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupee,” and it is my opinion that this French text of the clause is just as meaningless and impossible of being given a reasonable construction as is the English text unless it is read and considered with the clause immediately following which points out that the portion (obviously the habitations or plantations) north and east of the said line is to belong to the parish of Iberville and those habitations or plantations to the south and west of such line are to belong to the parish of St. Martin. Otherwise the latter clause would be unnecessary and therefore meaningless for it goes without saying that the location of these two parishes was already definitely established and it would be nothing more than redundancy to say that the portion of the state lying on the Iberville side of the line would form a part of Iberville parish and that on the St. Martin side would form a part of St. Martin parish.

For these reasons I respectfully dissent.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice

(dissenting).

The only question in this case is whether the dividing line between the two parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama all the way up from Osea (or Oski) Bay to the township line which forms the southern boundary of the Parish of Pointe Coupee, or shall follow that branch of Bayou Alabama upwards for a distance of only three miles, and then turn off in' a northwestern direction and follow the southern bou'ndary of the irregular section 60 to the rear boundary of that section (a distance of a mile and a half away from the East Branch of Bayou Alabama), and thence go upwards along the irregular course contended for by the Parish of Iberville.

It is not disputed — and in fact is stated and shown in the majority opinion in this case — that the dividing line between the two parishes does run through the center of the East Branch of Bayou Alabama from Osea (or Oski) Bay upward for a distance of three miles.

In the French text of Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847, it is said that the dividing line between the two parishes shall follow the West Branch of Bayou Alabama (la branche occidentale du bayou Alabama),. But it is conceded that the use of the French word occidentale, instead of orientate, in the French text of the statute, was a mistake, the intention being to use the words la branche oriéntale, which means the East Branch. In fact there is no West Branch of Bayou Alabama, the only two branches being the Main Branch and the East Branch. The Main Branch does not empty into Osea Bay, but empties into the Atchafalaya River, many miles west from the place where the East Branch empties into Osea Bay. Hence we all agree that the words in the French text la branche occidentale, mean the East Branch, as stated in the English text of the statute. With that understanding, the French text, very plainly, declares that the dividing line between the two parishes shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama all the way up from Osea Bay to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary line of the Parish of Pointe Coupee.

Commencing at the mouth of the East Branch of the bayou, at Osea Bay, the statute declares: “thence, it shall follow the said branch (de la elle suivra la dite branche), the two banks thereof comprising habitations (des deux cotés y compris les habitations), upward to the township line between townships six and seven (jusqu’au dessus de la ligne de township entre les townships six et sept)”

The French word suivra is a form of the verb suivre and means “shall follow”. The word “follow” — suivre—in the sense in which the surveyors use it, means, according to all of the dictionaries, “to proceed along, as a route or course”. Therefore, to say that the dividing line between the two parishes shall follow the said branch (suivra la dite branche) of Bayou Alabama upward to the township line between townships six and seven (jusqu’au dessus de la ligne de township entre les townships six et sept) means that the dividing line shall run along the center of the said branch of Bayou Alabama, all the way up to the township line. Certainly, it does not mean that the line shall follow the center of the East Branch of the bayou for a distance of only thne miles upward towards the township line and then turn abruptly northwestward and ru'n a distance of a mile and a half away from the East Branch of the bayou, and thence follow the zigzag line, or series of lines, which the Parish of Iberville is contending . for, out in the dense cypress swamp where there is nothing to show or indicate a boundary line.

In this connection, it seems impossible that the Legislature intended to adopt as the dividing line between the two parishes, the irregular and indefinite series of lines which the court is now adopting as the line which shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama (elle suivra la dite branche) upward to the township line between townships six and seven (jusqu’atu dessus de la ligne de township entre les townships six et sept). The irregular or broken line which the majority of the members of the cou'rt have adopted crosses the- Main Branch of Bayou Alabama about three miles below the township line between townships 6 and 7; and, at the place of crossing, the line follows the middle of the Main Branch of Bayou Alabama for a distance of about a quarter of a mile. And, stranger still, the line intersects the range line between ranges 7 and 8, about half a mile below the township line. At that point the range line is about a mile and a half west from the East Branch of Bayou Alabama.

The cause of the error of doubting that the East Branch of Bayou Alabama is the boundary line between the two parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, from Osea Bay all the way up to the township line between townships 6 and 7, is the fault in the translation of the parenthetical phrase, des deux cótés y compris les habitations. That expression was translated in the English text, erroneously, thus: “including the inhabitants of both sides thereof”. The literal translation of the phrase, according to Spiers and Surenne’s French Pronouncing Dictionary, would be “the two banks of which — meaning the two banks of the East branch of Bayou Alabama — comprising habitations.” Les habitations does not necessarily mean the habitations, but means simply habitations. In many instances, such as in this instance, it is proper to omit the article “the”, in translating from French to English,- — e. g. les habitations.

I do not find in Spiers & Surenne’s French Pronouncing Dictionary, in the edition of 1867, or of 1915, or of 1930, that the French word habitation means plantation. The only definitions given for the French word habitation are habitation, abode, place of abode, dwelling, residence, place of residence. The word plantation is not mentioned at all as a definition of the French word habitation. Nor is the French word habitation given as a definition for the English word plantation in that part of Spiers and Surenne’s Dictionary which translates the English words into French. I mention this because I do not believe that there were any plantations on the East Branch of Bayou Alabama in the year 1847, when Act 130 of that year was enacted. We must remember that that statute was enacted before the enactment of the swamp land grants of 1849 and 1850, Act of March 2, 1849, 43 U.S.C.A. § 982, and Act of September 28, 1850, 43 U.S.C.A. § 982, by which the swamp lands, such as the dense cypress swamp through which ran the East Branch of Bayou Alabama, were transferred by the Federal Government to the State of Louisiana. My opinion therefore is that we should translate the French word habitations as meaning “habitations”, — the true meaning of the phrase being — as the English text indicates —that both banks of the East Branch of the bayou were inhabited. It is possible, of course, -that in those days — a hundred years ago — in the French language as spoken in Louisiana the- French word habitation was used sometimes as meaning “plantation”. But that is a matter of little or no importance here because of the likelihood that the habitations on both banks of the East Branch of Bayou Alabama, in 1847, were very few and very small places of residence. One reason why it is not likely that the legislators who wrote Act No. 130 of 1847 intended to call these habitations “plantations” is that the word plantation, in the dictionaries, is spelled the same in French as in English, — so why should they not have used that word.

Referring again to the parenthetical phrase "des deux cútés y compris les habitations” — the most harmful mistake that was made in the translation was in translating the word compris as meaning “including”. Compris is a participle, a form of the French verb comprendre. It is true that one of its meanings is “include”, but that is not its only meaning. According to the French dictionary it means also to comprehend, to comprise, to contain, etc. As we all know, it is sometimes not possible to give a literal translation to a French expression and retain its sense. According to my understanding the word containing or comprising would be a more appropriate definition for the French word compris, as it is used in Act No. 130 of 1847. A liberal translation of the phrase, des deux cotes y compris les habitations, would be “the two banks of which” — meaning both banks of the East Branch of Bayou Alabama — “comprising habitations — or having habitations on them.”

By translating the phrase, des deux cútés y compris les habitations, as meaning “including the plantations on both sides” the majority opinion makes it necessary to add or interpolate the name of the parish in which the so-called plantations are to be included. And the court concludes that these so-called plantations, on both banks of the bayou, should be included not in the Parish of St. Martin but in the Parish of Iberville. The reason for that conclusion, as I understand, is (1st) that it was in response to “two memorials of certain inhabitants of the Parish of Iberville relative to the division between the Parishes of Ascension and Iberville” that the bill to define the boundary line between those two parishes was introduced in the Legislature, and (2nd) that Mr. Adams, who made the motion to amend the bill by adding the words “and the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin”, was the senator from the Parishes of Iberville and West Baton Rouge.

I respectfully submit that in our interpretation of this statute we should adhere to the words of the Act and be not governed by any supposed intention on the part of the sponsor or sponsors of the bill in the Legislature. We must remember that the statute represents the expressions of a majority of the members of both houses of the Legislature. If they had intended to say that the habitations, or so-called plantations, on both sides of the East Branch of Bayou Alabama, should be included in the Parish of Iberville, they would have said so in the statute. I see no good reason for supplying the statement that the habitations or so-called plantations on both sides of the East Branch of Bayou Alabama should be included in the Parish of Iberville. The object of the statute, as expressed in both languages, in its title, was to define the boundary line between the two parishes. And the statute declares that the dividing line between the two parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama upward to the township line between townships six and seven, which is the northern boundary of both parishes, being the southern boundary of the Parish of Pointe Coupee.

I agree, of course, with the statement in the majority opinion that “The interpretation of this statute is a judicial function”, and with the statement “that the map compilers could not legally fix or establish any boundary other than that defined and called for by the act”, — Act No. 130 of 1847.

For that reason my opinion is that Powell’s map, approved in 1858, should be dealt with merely as showing the source and origin of the error made in subsequent maps, su'ch as Dickinson’s map, made in 1883, and Hardee’s map of 1871, and the Hardee map of 1894. In this connection I agree with the statement in the majority opinion that the Hardee map of 1871 does not locate the dividing line between the two parishes "with any degree of certainty”. The photolithographs of T. 7 and 8 S., R. 8 E., filed in the recorder’s office in Iberville Parish in 1877, of course, do not purport to show the dividing line between the two parishes.

The survey made by Charles Gutekunst, surveyor and civil engineer, in 1919, adheres to the declaration in the statute that the dividing line between the two Parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama from Osea Bay upward to the township line between townships six and seven. And the notes which appear as a legend on his map declare : “This liiap is made from approved maps and field notes of the U. S. Government and actual surveys made by me”,— Charles Gu'tekunst.

The official map compiled by the Board of State Engineers under authority of Act No. 159 of 1928, and the quadrangle map’ made by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, also show that the surveyors and engineers who made the surveys from which these maps were compiled adhered to the declaration in the statute that the dividing line between the two parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama upward from Osea Bay to the township line between townships six and seven, which is the northern boundary of the two parishes, being the southern boundary of the Parish of Pointe Coupee.

However, I rest my opinion in this case upon the declaration in the statute that the dividing line between the two parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama, — the two banks thereof comprising habitations,— upward from Osea Bay to the township line between townships six and seven,— and upon the declaration in the majority opinion that “the interpretation of this statute is a judicial function” and “that the map compilers could not legally fix or establish any boundary other than that defined and called for by the act”, — Act No. 130 of 1847.

On Rehearing

BOND, Justice.

This action, now before us on rehearing, is one to have ascertained and determined judicially the location of the boundary line between the Parishes of St. Martin and Iberville, as fixed by Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847.

The writer adopts in full the reasons of the author of the original opinion, insofar as said reasons are based upon the application of the doctrine of contemporaneous construction relative to the fixing of the boundary line between said parishes beginning at the southeast corner of Section 60, Township 8 South, Range 8 East; thence following the south line of said Section 60 to the back line thereof; thence running north, northeast, north, northwest, following the back or west lines of Sections 60, etc., as shown in the original decree. But, in accepting the findings of the author of the original opinion on the basis of contemporaneous construction, it becomes necessary to amend and modify the original decree herein rendered so as to fix that portion of the boundary line between the parishes of St. Martin and Iberville beginning at Whiskey (Oski) Bay to the Southeast corner of Section 60.

In the original opinion, in fixing the boundary line as the center of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from Whiskey Bay to the southeast corner of Section 60, Township 8 South, Range 8 East, the majority of the Court was misled in relying upon the admissions in the agreed statement of facts upon which this case was tried, the briefs, and the argument of counsel for both Parishes, that this portion of the boundary line was not in dispute. Because of these admissions, the writer almost fell into the same error. However, the petition and the answer put at issue this portion of the boundary line and, as pointed out in the original opinion, this is a matter for judicial determination. Hence, the admissions are not binding upon the parties nor the Court and since the matter is before us, it should be disposed of at this time.

The maps relied upon in the original opinion, namely, the Powell Map of 1858, the Maps of Townships 7 and 8 South, Range 8 East, the Dickinson Map of 1883, and the Hardee Map of 1895, place the boundary line between said parishes as “the East Bank of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama beginning at Whiskey Bay, and thence running north along said bank to a point opposite to the southeast corner of Section 60, Township 8 South, Range 8 East, on the west bank of the river, and thence crossing said bayou to the southeast corner of Section 60, etc., as set out in the original decree. Since the writer is affirming this decree solely upon the contemporaneous construction based upon these maps, it becomes necessary to amend the original decree only as to that portion of the line between Whiskey Bay and the southeast corner of Section 60, in order to conform with the boundary line as fixed by said surveys and maps.

For the reasons assigned, the original decree rendered herein is amended to read, as follows:

The. boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin is judicially determined and located pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847, as: Starting at Whiskey (Oski) Bay; thence along the Eastern bank of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama to a point where it intersects a projected line of the southern boundary of Section 60; thence crossing said Bayou from said point and along said projected line to the Western bank of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama where it meets the southeast corner of Section 60, Township 8 South, Range 8 East; thence following the back or west lines of Sections 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, and 39, in Township 8 South, Range 8 East, and following the back or west lines of Sections 34, 33, 32,. 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 74, 52, 93, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, and 36, in Township 7 South, Range 8 East, to a point where it intersects the township line between Township 6 South, Range 8 East, and Township 7 South, Range 8 East, or the southern, boundary of the Parish of Pointe Coupee, as shown on the Powell map of 1858.

All costs of court to be paid by plaintiffappellee.

McCALEB, Justice

(dissenting).

I subscribed to the original opinion herein, as I was of the view that the controverted language contained in Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847 was so ambiguous that it was impossible to ascertain therefrom the-true intention of the Legislature; that, under the circumstances, the court was compelled, ex necessitate rei, to rely upon the interpretations given to the statute by the officials (surveyors, assessors, etc.) having to-deal with it about the time the law took effect and that, by applying the contemporaneous construction of such officers, as. shown by their plats and maps, the case was. with the Parish of Iberville.

Further consideration of the matter, however, has convinced me of the error of my former views. The portion of the statute-in dispute reads “ * * * thence through the middle thereof to the eastern branch of the bayou Alabama; thence following the said branch, including the inhabitants on both sides thereof, upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupée; * * *(Italics mine.) Everyone is in agreement that the uncertainty resulting from the above quoted language is brought about by the parenthetical clause "including the inhabitants on both sides thereof”. Eliminating that clause, the pertinent language would read “thence following the said branch (eastern branch of Bayou Alabama) upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupée.” Thus, it seems clear enough that the Legislature intended' (and expressed its intention) that the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin Parishes should follow the eastern branch of Bayou Alabama upwards to the township line to the point where the bayou struck the southern boundary of Pointe Coupée Parish.

However, since the parenthetical clause “including the inhabitants on both sides thereof” has been used and is directly connected with the otherwise clear provisions, it, too, must be read with the whole and its effect considered so that the entire provision can be given a meaning, if that is possible. Everyone concedes that the clause, as it appears in English, cannot make sense when applied to a boundary line. On the other hand, according to the translations of the French text of the statute, which have been made by Chief Justice O’Niell and Justice Fournet, the clause is shown to be merely descriptive of the area surrounding the eastern branch of Bayou Alabama, rather than to include plantations within one parish or the other, as found by the scholars who translated the French text into English for the author of the original opinion.

I do not for a moment assert that the translations of the dissenting justices.are to be given more weight than the translation of the scholars, to whom the French text was referred, as I am not sufficiently versed in the French language to have an independent opinion. I assume that each translation is entitled to equal dignity. This being so, it now seems manifest to me that the translations of the dissenting justices should prevail for the reason that those translations of the parenthetical phrase blend and fit with the other language of the statute so as to make the entire provision clear and readily understandable. Conversely, the other translation of the clause, when read with the language with which it is associated, destroys the import of that language, rendering it unintelligible and incapable of interpretation.

As a consequence, the court, in concluding in favor of the Parish of Iberville ot} the theory of contemporaneous construction, has been unable to fix the boundary following the eastern branch of Bayou Alabama “upwards to the township line between townships six and seven” and has substituted in its place and stead a boundary line based on ancient surveys, which are completely in discord with the provisions of the legislative act.

I respectfully dissent.

On Rehearing

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

I concur in the decree rendered herein on rehearing and also in the reasoning upon which this decree is based. In addition, I still fully subscribe to all the reasoning given in the opinion rendered on original hearing.

O’NIELL, C. J., adheres to his dissenting opinion

FOURNET, J., adheres to his dissenting opinion.