Case ID: la_163/html/0623-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’NIELL, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(112 So. 508)
    No. 28134.
    KENNER v. COUSIN et al.
    March 28, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied April 25, 1927.
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Trespass <&wkey;43(2) — Justification that defendants came on plaintiff’s land lawfully under court order for survey need not be specially pleaded.
    In action for trespass, where defendants came on plaintiff’s land in obedience to an order of the court directing a survey, it was not necessary that the defendants specially plead such circumstances, since the plaintiff must prove that the invasion of her premises was unlawful.
    Appeal from Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany; Prentiss B. Carter, Judge.
    Action by Mrs. Frances A. Kenner agáinst Leon J. Cousin and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    , Huddleston Kenner, of New Orleans,' for appellant.
    Lewis L. Morgan, of New Orleans, and J. Monroe Simmons, of Covington, for appellees
   O’NIELL, C. J.

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment rejecting her demand for damages for an alleged, trespass upon her land. The case presents only questions of fact. The district court found that there was no wanton invasion of the plaintiff’s premises nor damage done. The defendants went upon the premises to make a survey, in obedience of an order of court rendered in a suit then pending; one of the three defendants being the surveyor appointed by the court, and the two other defendants being parties to or interested in the suit. They were accompanied by a deputy sheriff, because the plaintiff had forbidden them to enter upon her land, which was absolutely necessary in order to obey the orders of the court.

The learned counsel for appellant argues that the defendants’ plea of justification, based upon the court’s order for a survey, should not prevail, because it was not urged in the answer to the suit; the answer being merely a denial of each allegation of the petition. That is a matter of little or no importance, because the plaintiff had to prove the' alleged unlawful invasion of her premises, and, in making the proof it came to light that the invasion was not unlawful, but, on the contrary, warranted by the court’s order for a survey.

The judgment is affirmed.