Case ID: so2d_72/html/0626-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ELLIS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. v. Benoit BEGNAUD.
    No. 3839.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.
    April 26, 1954.
    Bailey & Mouton, Lafayette, for appellant.
    Babineaux & Huval, Lafayette, for ap-pellee.
   ELLIS, Judge.

This is an expropriation suit brought by a public service corporation to acquire a servitude across the defendant’s property (45 arpents) upon which to construct and maintain a power transmission line.

The lower court awarded plaintiff the servitude sought, at $200 per acre, or the sum of $250, covering the servitude granted, and damages for the diminution for the remainder of defendant’s property in the amount of $400.

The plaintiff has appealed, maintaining the tender it made for the property involved of $133 was reasonable and that the judgment of the lower court should be reduced accordingly.

The only question here is one of value. '

The tract owned by defendant consists of 45 arpents and the servitude area is 1.25 acres. The property is located in the same area and is of a similar character to that owned by George Domingue, and this case was decided by the same lower court which decided that case, which is presently on appeal here. There' is a note of the oral reasons for judgment, and the trial court stated therein that many of the reasons assigned in the case of Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Domingue, 72 So.2d 623, are applicable to this present case, but found that there was some difference in the value of the property in this case from the property of George Domingue.

We stated in the case referred to that we found no manifest error, and for this reason we feel that the judgment of the District Court herein should be affirmed. Our learned brother below was familiar with the property, confronted the witnesses, and his findings should be given great weight.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.