(106 So. 672)

No. 24941.

#### BARKER v. HOUSSIERE-LATREILLE OIL CO.

(March 30, 1925.

On Rehearing, Nov. 30, 1925.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

I. Boundaries <&wkey;>48(I)—Under facts, judge justified in accepting corners within original survey adopted and acquiesced in as determinative of correct location of lines.

In a boundary dispute, where markers of original survey were not existent, *held*that district judge, under the facts, was justified in *53accepting corners within the original survey of subdivision which had been adopted and acquiesced in by property owners for years, as determinative of correct location of lines between respective lots of plaintiff and defendant; it being well established that, in the re-establishment of lines and corners in a given subdivision, monuments within such subdivision should be accepted as correct locations in preference to a subsequent survey or in a subdivision of an adjoining tract.

2. Boundaries <@=>35 (5)—Markers of original survey being destroyed, court properly heard secondary evidence as to authenticity of relocation thereof.

In boundary dispute, where original markers of original survey were not existent, judge properly heard secondary evidence as to authenticity of relocation of original markers, for in such cases location can frequently be established by testimony of old residents, or from the construction of buildings, sidewalks, etc.

3. Boundaries <§=36—Courses and distances most unreliable in fixing location of old survey; distances being more uncertain than courses.

Courses and distances are most unreliable in fixing location of old survey; distances being more uncertain than courses.

4. Boundaries <&wkey;36(5)—Survey which selected old fence posts as starting point properly rejected by court in determining boundaries.

In a boundary dispute, *held*that judge, in fixing boundaries, properly rejected the survey which selected old fence posts as starting point, as old fence posts are very unreliable as starting points or checking points in city surveys, and surveyors should exercise great caution in adopting the same.

5. Boundaries &wkey;>3(3)—Monuments, either natural or artificial, used to mark either lines or corners, more reliable than courses and distances, and prevail in case of conflict.

Monuments, either natural or artificial, used to mark either lines or corners, are more reliable than courses or distances, and prevail in case of conflict.

6. Boundaries <&wkey;37(3)— Evidence held to show corners of block were authentic relocations of original stakes, so that measurements based on courses and distances must yield to location based on such corners in original survey.

In boundary dispute, where markers of original survey were not existent, and where' crucial question was the proper location of the west property line of a certain block, *held*that evidence established with reasonable certainty that corners of such block were authentic relocations of original stake driven at such corner, and any discrepancies in measurements by courses or distances must yield to the actual relocation based on corners in original survey.

7. Boundaries <&wkey;47(!)—Plaintiff not learning of encroachment of defendant’s building on his property until beginning construction of own building, years later, not estopped to request fixing of boundary and removal of part encroaching on his property.

Where plaintiff in a boundary dispute did not learn that defendant’s hotel building encroached on his lots until measurements were taken by himself and contractor for the erection of his own building, years after construction of defendant’s building, he was not es-topped to request that boundary be judicially fixed, and defendant be compelled to remove that part of building encroaching on property.

8. Boundaries <&wkey;48(2)—Principal and agent <®=3|00(6)—Mandate; encroachment upon plaintiff’s premises'not acquiesced in by plaintiff because foreman joined wall of plaintiff’s building with that of defendant; foreman held unauthorized to join wall.

In a boundary dispute, *held*that encroachment of defendant’s building upon plaintiff’s premises, was not acquiesced in by plaintiff because his foreman joined wall of plaintiff’s building with that of defendant, in view of fact that plaintiff’s building, even when joined with wall of defendant’s building, was wholly on his own property, and moreover act of foreman was unauthorized.

9. Adverse possession <@=>40 — Prescription; plea of prescription not well founded, where • no adverse possession for 10 years under survey made by sworn surveyor of state in conformity with requirements of Code.

In boundary dispute, where plaintiff sought to have portion of defendant’s wall removed from his property, defendant’s plea of prescription was not well founded, where there was no evidence tending to show that a survey had been made by a sworn surveyor of state in conformity with requirements of Civ. Code, art. 853, fixing boundaries between plaintiff’s and defendant’s lots, or that adverse possession had been held for 10 years under such survey.

*5510. Adjoining landowners <&wkey;9(2)—Under statute, plaintiff had legal right to demand -defendant’s removal of wall from his premises, and could not be compelled to accept compromise or be penalized with all costs for pursuance of such legal right.

In a proceeding to fix boundaries between plaintiff and defendant’s lots, *held*that plaintiff, under Oiv. Code, art. 508, applying to removal of works after their completion as distinguished from Oiv. Oo.de, arts. 864b-866, applying to works in process of construction, had a clear legal right to demand the removal from his premises of encroaching wall of defendant’s building, and he was not compelled to accept any compromise in the matter, nor could he be penalized with payment of all costs in case as a penalty for pursuing such legal right successfully.

11. New trial <&wkey;l08(2)—Court properly exercised discretion in overruling motion for new trial in boundary dispute, on ground evidence would not change result of case, and substantial justice could be done from present state of record.

In boundary dispute, where plaintiff sought removal of defendant’s wall from his premises, *held*that court properly exercised its discretion in overruling defendant’s motion for new trial, on the ground that new evidence would not change result of case, and justice could be done on record as already made.

St. Paul, J., and O’Niell, O. J., dissenting.

Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson Davis; Jerry Cline, Judge.

Action by Charles A. Barker against the Houssiere-Latreille Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Modisette &. Adams, of Jennings, and D. Caffery, Paul A. Sompayrac, and Anna C. McKay, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

McCoy & Moss, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

LAND, J.

This is an action in boundary, in which the plaintiff alleges that the Houssiere-Latreille Oil Company has erected a brick building on its lot in the town of Jennings, La., and has encroached to the extent of 18 inches upon the adjoining lot of plaintiff, and that the entire wall of said building and foundation has been located upon plaintiff’s lot.

Plaintiff prays that the boundary line between his property and that of defendant company be judicially fixed, and that said company be required to demolish and remove the brick wall located upon plaintiff’s premises and to give to plaintiff full possession of his premises.

The judgment of the lower court holds that the wall of defendant company’s brick building encroaches upon the property of the plaintiff one-half of its thickness, namely, one-half of 18 inches plus nine-hundredths of a foot, and orders defendant company to remove its wall from the property of plaintiff and to complete said removal not later than 60 days after the judgment becomes final.

The case is before us on an appeal by defendant company from said judgment.

1. The property owned by plaintiff is described in his title deed as follows:

> “That certain lot of ground in block twenty (20) of said town, embraced within the following metes and bounds, beginning in Front street forty-four (44) feet from the southwest corner of said block twenty, thence northward on a line parallel with North Main street one hundred and sixty-four (164) feet, thence eastward parallel with Front street forty-four (44) feet, thence southward parallel with North Main street one hundred and sixty-four (164) feet to Front street, thence on north side Front street to place of beginning.”

Defendant’s property, as per its title deed, is described as follows:

> “A lot with forty-fouij feet front on Railroad avenue, and eighty-nine (89) feet front on Main street, being in the southwest corner'of block twenty (20j of McFarlain’s original plat of the town of Jennings, La.”

The crucial question in this ease is as to the proper location of the west property line of block 20 in the town of Jennings, which is built upon the N. E. *Vi*of S. E. *Vi*and S. *Vs*of S. E. *Vi*of Sec. 34, T. 9, R. 3. A. D. Me*57Farlain, the original owner, on September 20 and 21, 1883, caused the N. E. % of S. E. % of said section to be subdivided into lots and blocks by George O. Elms, a surveyor. The whole of block 20 is within the lines of the Elms survey, and. the southeast corner of said block is on the south line of the N. E. % of S. E. % of said section.

[1] The district judge has established the boundary line between the lots of plaintiff and defendant company according to corners within the Elms survey, which have been adopted and acquiesced in by the property owners in block 20 for a number of years, and which have been checked upon the southwest corner of block 51, as a starting point, a corner also acknowledged as correct by the owners of said block. It is true, the original owner, A. B. McFarlain, w.as dead, and that, at the time of the judicial surveys made by Vandercook and J. W. Sylvester in this case, none of the original stakes or markers of the Elms survey were in existence. The lower court has been compelled, therefore, to receive and consider the testimony of witnesses as to the disputed points within the Elms survey, and to determine from the evidence whether such points are authentic relocations of the original stakes of that survey. The lot now owned by defendant company and other lots in said block were sold by McFarlain, the original owner, to various purchasers, under the original Elms survey, and before the survey made by Kasson Freeman in the spring of 1885 of the S. % of S. E. % of said section, and the resurvey by him, at the time, of the N. E-. % of S. E. %, embraced within the original Elms survey. The map of the Elms survey shows located on the east property line, at the southeast corner of block 20, a store building owned and erected by A. D. McFarlain, the original owner, and also a store building erected about the year 1884 by Berouen & Andrus on the lot at the southwest corner of the block 20, the same lot now owned by defendant company. These buildings were erected on lots whose corners had been marked by the original stakes placed there under the Elms survey. Under this state of facts, the trial judge was justified in accepting points within the Elms survey as determinative of the correct location of the lines between the respective lots of plaintiff and defendant company, as it is well settled that in the re-establishment of lines and corners in a given subdivision, monuments within said subdivision should be accepted as correct locations, in preference to monuments in a subsequent survey thereof, or in a subdivision of an adjoining tract. Hall v. Caplis, 109 La. 483, 33 So. 570; Gage v. Danks, 13 La. Ann. 128; Johnson-Smith on Surveying, § 153, p. 190, par. 12.

[2] The trial judge, therefore, was fully authorized to amend the judicial survey made by J. W. Sylvester, as to the starting point adopted by him at the southeast corner of section 34, being the southeast corner of Mc-Farlain’s original map of town of Jennings. The court below also properly heard testimony as to the authenticity of the relocation of the original markers at the corner of blocks 20 and 51, for the reason that, when the original stakes in a given survey have decayed or been destroyed, their exact location can frequently be established by testimony of old residents, or the construction of buildings, sidewalks, curbings, etc. In such cases recourse to secondary evidence becomes necessary. Johnson-Smith on Surveying, p. 222; Id. § 338, pp. 457, 458; Id. § 330, p. 661; 4 R. C. L. § 41, p. 105; 9 C. J. § 15, p. 162.

[3] Courses and distances are the most unreliable evidence in fixing the location of an old survey, and distances are more uncertain than courses. Admin. Tulane Edu. F. v. Stair, 148 La. 19, 86 So. 595; Shreveport v. Simon, 132 La. 69, 60 So. 795 ; 4 R. C. L. § 44, p. 108; Clark on Surveying, § 17, p. 13.

[4] As indicated on the map of the Elms *59survey, the tracks and right of way of the Louisiana Western Railroad extend through the extreme southwest corner of the original 40-acre tract. Prior to the Elms survey, a fe¿ce was constructed by the railroad company around its section house. However, the fence posts selected by Yandercook as a starting point are shown by the testimony not to belong to the original fence around this section house, but to be the stumps of a skeleton fence that stood about 4 feet east of the original fence, and which had been erected to protect banana plants.

The first judicial survey made by Yandercook was properly rejected by the court. This survey begins from an erroneous starting point, reduces the size of the lots of plaintiff and defendant company from 44 feet to 43.72 feet, and moves the west property line of block 20 over on the sidewalks on south Main street, in disregard of well-established corners. Moreover, the effect of the Yandercook survey is to move all of the streets, buildings, fences, etc., in the town of Jennings too far west by a distance of about 4 feet.

Old fences are very unreliable as starting points or checking points in city surveys, and a surveyor should use great caution in adopting same. Clark on Surveying, § 18, p. 14; Johnson-Smith on Surveying, p. 732; Martin v. Breaux, 12 La. Ann. 690.

[5] The second judicial survey, made by Sylvester, amended and adopted by the lower court, does not pretend to approve as authentic any corner pipe or stake, mentioned therein, but simply gives the starting point and location of corners according to courses and distances. The location of certain pipes, pins, or stakes at corners are indicated in the survey; the discrepancies between the corners located by courses and distances and the corner pipes, pins,, or stakes as found are stated; but the question as to their adoption or rejection as authentic relocations of these cor.ners is left entirely to the discretion of the trial judge.

Monuments, either natural or artificial, used to mark either lines or corners, are more reliable than courses and distances, and in ease of conflict must prevail. Admin. Tulane Educational Fund v. Stair, 148 La. 17, 86 So. 595; Hall v. Caplis, 109 La. 484, 33 So. 570; Le Breton v. Lewis, 5 Rob. 479; 4 R. C. L. § 41, p. 105; Id. § 44, p. 108; Id. § 56, p. 117; 9 C. J. § 118, p. 210; Id. § 138, p. 218; Id. § 45, p. 176.

The trial judge, in homologating the judicial survey made by Sylvester, sustained the opposition of plaintiff to the extent of accepting the iron pipe at the southwest corner of block 51 as an authentic reproduction of the original survey stake, and as a starting point for the measurements used in locating the disputed line in this'case, and approved the procés verbal of .the Sylvester judicial survey, as amended.

This brings us to the consideration of the testimony in the case as to the authenticity of the relocation of the southwest corner of block 51 and of the other comers in controversy. W. E. Coffin, a resident of Jennings for 31 years, and his associates, own the Coffin & Jaenke building, erected at the northwest corner of block 20. This lot was purchased from Feleno Derouen by Coffin and associates. Before constructing the Coffin & Jaenke Building, Coffin employed Harvey, a civil engineer of ability and experience, to locate the lines. Derouen pointed out to Coffin an iron stake at the southwest corner of block 20 as the correct corner. A store had been kept by Derouen on this property for a number of years. The lines were located by Harvey,.and afterwards checked by Greer, a civil engineer, and found correct. Coffin had a resurvey made by Greer before the building was erected, as the. contractor contended that the measurements made by Harvey were erroneous. Coffin recalls also that there was a stake at *the*southwest cornel• *of*block 20, known as the McFarlain corner. The Coffin & Jaenke building was completed *61in the year 1903, is still standing, and was occupied at the date oi the trial of this suit by Oappal. The west wall of the Coffin *&*Jaenke building was set exactly on the west property line, and the east wall 6 inches from the east line of the lot. A. D. McFarlain was still alive at the time these stakes were in existence, and resided in the town of Jennings.

Derouen had also pointed out the iron stake at the southwest corner of block 20 to Jos. McFarland, stating, at the time, that they had taken the original stake, and had driven down the iron stake in its place. The sidewalk, which was wooden, was just outside of this iron stake at the time McFarland saw it. This witness also saw the instrument set over this iron stake, when the survey was made to locate the Coffin & Jaenke building.

J. F. Harvey, civil engineer, arrived in Jennings shortly after a destructive fire in the business section of the town, in the year 1902. All the buildings then standing on block 20 were destroyed. . Among the first surveys made by Harvey was a survey for A. D. Mc-Farlain and for the Coffin & Jaenke building. A. D. McFarlain, who platted the town of Jennings, pointed out to Harvey the spot at the southeast corner of block 20 where the original stakes would be found. Upon digging into the ground at the point indicated, Harvey located a 2x2 stake at the southeast corner of McFarlain’s old brick store. Running from this stake the proper course and distance, the position of the original pine stake at the southwest corner of block 51 was located, and, upon digging into the ground, was found by Harvey. In other words, the southeast corner of block 20 checked with the southwest corner of block 51. The latter comer was perpetuated by Harvey at the time of the construction of a cement sidewalk, by driving an iron pipe, now in the sidewalk, over the original pine stake.

Sylvester had his attention called by Harvey to the fact that he should find the remainder of this original stake in the iron pipe in the cement sidewalk. Upon digging, Sylvester found a fragment of the stake, which was produced in evidence before the trial judge. At the time Harvey made the Coffin and Jaenke survey, he found the two original corners at the southeast and southwest corner of block 20, the original corner at the southwest comer of block 51, and also the remains of a stake, at the northeast comer of block 20, later perpetuated by him by driving a harrow tooth at the place it then stood. These corners checked with the pine stake at the southwest comer of block 51.

The Coffin & Jaenke building was constructed flush with the property line upon Main street. The hotel building of defendant company is in a line with the Coffin & Jaenke building, and therefore is properly located on the west line of the lot at the southwest corner of block 20.

In the year 1902, shortly after the Jennings fire, the plaintiff and A. D. McFarlain joined in building a brick apd concrete foundation between their *lots;*one-half of said foundation being located on plaintiff’s lot. The property lines were located by Stevens, jointly employed by the parties as a surveyor, and at that time the iron rod at the Derouen corner, the remains of the original stake at the southeast corner of block 20, and the remains of the stake at the southwest corner of block 51 were all in existence, and the line between the lots of plaintiff and McFarlain was located in accordance with these comers.

Plaintiff prepared to build upon his lot about the time of the institution of this suit, October, 1919, but, before building, the contractor uncovered this foundation wall, which was below the surface of the lot, and discovered by actual measurements with a steel tape that the distance from the west face of the wall of defendant company’s hotel building to the center of the foundation on the east line of plaintiff’s lot was 88 feet. This is ad*63ditional proof that the west wall of the hotel building of defendant company was built flush with the west property line of block 20, and that the east line of plaintiff’s lot, adjoining the McEarlain lot, is correctly located.

As stated by the trial judge in his opinion in this case:

> “Mr. Sylvester’s measurements show the disputed iron pipe (southwest corner of block 51) to be plus 84, the east face of the Woodman building at the northwest corner of block 51 plus 73, the southwest corner of the hotel property in block 20 plus 60, and the northwest corner of the Coffin & Jaenke building plus 66. The greatest variance between these points is plus 24, a slight difference when we consider a probable disturbance of actual corner markers in the construction of buildings.”

The measurements made by Sylvester, therefore, tend to confirm the location on the ground of these corners and buildings as correct. Defendant’s lot is 44 feet wide. The west wall of the hotel building of said company is located on the west property line of block 20. As the width of this building is 45.5 feet, its encroachment upon the lot of plaintiff is inevitable, as a building 44 feet 9 inches would cover the lot of defendant company from west property line to east property line, and allow 9 inches of the east wall to rest upon the lot of plaintiff.

[6] We are of the opinion that the evidence establishes with reasonable certainty that the comers of block 20 are authentic relocations of the original stakes driven at said corners. Therefore any discrepancy in measurements by courses and distances must yield, under well-settled jurisprudence, to the actual location upon the ground of these corners in the original .survey.

[7] 2. Plaintiff did not discover that the hotel building of defendant company encroached upon his lot until measurements were taken by him and the contractors for the erection of his building in the year 1919. The construction of defendant company’s four-story brick building began in 1908 and was completed early in 1909. In 1915 the building was remodeled and converted into a hotel and office building.

The case of Pokorny et al. v. Pratt, 110 La. 609, 34 So. 706, relied upon by defendant company, has no application to the present case. The plaintiff in that case knew of the encroachment of defendant’s four-story brick building upon her lot, when the building was only two stories high, but, instead of taking out an injunction under O. O. art. 866, forbidding defendant to continue the work, plaintiff permitted the building to be completed, with a full knowledge of its encroachment upon her premises. The court held under that state of facts that plaintiff was bound by her silence and estopped from demanding the demolition of the wall. Moreover, in that case plaintiff had sued for damages.

[8] 3. Nor do we find any acquiescence in the encroachment upon his premises by plaintiff, resulting from the foreman joining the wall of plaintiff’s building to the wall of defendant company’s building. Plaintiff’s building was entirely upon his own property, even when joined to the wall of deféndant company’s building. The contractors of plaintiff had been instructed by him not' to join these walls. The act of the foreman in doing so was unauthorized and inadvertent, and the walls were disconnected by the order of plaintiff.

[9] 4. Defendant’s plea of prescription of 10 years is not well founded. Article 853 of the Civil Code provides that:

> “If the boundaries have been fixed according to a common title, or according to different titles, and the surveyor has committed an error in his measure, it can always be rectified, unless the part of the land on which the error was committed, be acquired by an adverse possession of ten years, if the parties are' present, and twenty years, if absent.”

In order to sustain the plea of prescription of 10 years under article 853, it is necessary not only to show a possession of .10 years, but *34also that the possession has been held by boundaries fixed by a surveyor in accordance with article 833 and consecutive articles of the Civil Code, requiring the work to be done by a sworn surveyor of the state, notice to the parties, examination by the surveyor of title papers, procSs verbal of survey, etc. Gray v. Couvillon, 12 La. Ann. 730.

There is no evidence to show any survey made by a sworn surveyor of this state, in conformity with the requirements of the Civil Code, fixing the boundary lines between the lots owned by plaintiff and defendant company, and adverse possession by defendant company for 10 years under such survey. '.

[10] 5. Articles 864, 865, and 866 of the Civil Code refer to oppositions to new works during the process of their construction, when such works may be detrimental to the adjoining proprietor. Article 508 of the Civil Code applies to the removal of works after their completion, and provides that:

> “When plantations, constructions and works have been made by a third person, and with such person’s own materials, the owner of the soil has a right to keep them or to compel this person to take away or demolish the same.”

> “If the owner requires the demolition of such works, they shall be demolished at the expense of the person who erected them, without any compensation; such person may even be sentenced to pay damages, if the case requires it, for the prejudice which the owner of the soil may have sustained.”

Plaintiff has a clear legal right under this article to demand the demolition and the removal from his premises of the wall of defendant company’s building. Plaintiff was not compelled, therefore, to accept any compromise in the matter, if he did not see fit to do so. Nor can plaintiff be penalized with the payment of all the costs in this case as a punishment for pursuing a legal right which he has successfully asserted and enforced in the present case.

When it is remembered that defendant company has attempted to erect a building 45.5 wide upon a lot only 44 feet in width, it jumps to the eye that defendant company was well aware of the fact that its building when erected would encroach upon the premises of plaintiff. This result was inevitable, and obviously foreseen. It cannot be contended, therefore, in this case, that the equitable considerations are entirely on the side of defendant company. The costs in this case should therefore be borne equally by the plaintiff and defendant company, as decreed in the judgment of the lower court.

[11] 6. Defendant company filed a motion for a new trial April 5, 1921, and a supplemental motion June 11, 1921, in which it is stated that defendant company, if granted a new trial, will be able to show conclusively that its hotel building is 2.97 feet out in North Main street, and is not encroaching upon plaintiff’s premises.

Plaintiff filed a motion to strike from the files the motion and amended motion for a new trial as coming too late. The judgment in this case was read and signed in open court March 28, 1921, and filed March 30, 1921.

The court overruled the motion for new trial for the following reasons:

> “But there is nothing, after all, in the new evidence, as set out by the mover, which would be likely to change the result of the ease. It would have but little, if any, value until there was proof that the surveyor of the town site adopted the railroad occupancy, and tied his plat to it; and, even in event of such proof, which has not been tendered, there is no showing and no probability that it would overcome the evidence of the authenticity of monuments upon which the judgment is based.”

> “The ease has been fully tried. A great mass of evidence is in the record. Every facility afforded by time and expert assistance has been availed of. There must be an end to any litigated case, however important it may be. There is no good reason, in the view of the court, why justice cannot be done in this case upon the record already made up.” Ev. p. 156.

*67It is therefore clear that the trial judge exercised correctly his legal discretion in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., dissents.

ST. PAUL, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

OVERTON; J., recused.

ST. PAUL, J.

(dissenting). I concur in the finding of fact (in effect) that the southwest corner of defendant’s four-story brick building, known as the Madeline Hotel, corresponds *exactly*with the corner of Front and Main streets, being the southwest corner of block 20, in the town of Jennings; and that accordingly the division line between defendant’s property, and that of plaintiff which adjoins it on the east, corresponds *exactly*with the west face of defendant’s east wall, so that defendant’s said east wall, situated at a distance of 44 feet east of said southwest corner, stands wholly upon plaintiff’s property, and therefox-e encroaches thereon the full thickness of said wall, to wit, exactly 18 inches.

I reach this conclusion, not only for the reasons assigned by Mr. Justice LAND, but also because the whole evidence shows that the .south and west faces of .the Madeline Hotel mark the *practical*lines—i. e., established lines—of Front and Main streets in the town of Jennings, and even sovereign states and governments “are bound by the practical line, that has been established as their boundary, although not precisely a true one.” New Mexico v. Colorado, 267 U. S. 30, 45 S. Ct. 202, 69 L. Ed. 499 (January 26, 1925 [No. 12, October term, 1924]), citing Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660, 12 L. Ed. 861.

But defendant was entitled to rest one-half its wall, to the extent of 9 inches, on plaintiff’s property.' R. C. C. art. 675. Hence the actual encroachment was only 9 inches. And I am convinced (in fact, it is not and could not be pretended otherwise) that this is the result of an honest'mistake either in originally locating the line or in preparing the plans for the building.

Under the circumstances, I think that plaintiff should be justly (even amply) compensated for the damages which he may have suffered by the reduction of the frontage of his own lot fx-om 44 feet to 43 feet 3 inches. Or plaintiff might even (under the circumstances) be awarded' half the wall in exchange for half the ground. But defendant should not be condemned, unless for the very “strongest reasons,” to destroy a great four-' story wall without benefit to any one. See Pokorny v. Pratt, 110 La. 609, 611, 34 So. 706. See, also-, 1 Corpus Juris, 1209, note 67, and authorities there cited, particularly Mayfair Property Co. v. Johnston, Eng. Law. Rep. 1894, 1 Chancery, 508.

I therefore dissent.

On Rehearing.

ROGERS, J.

On reconsideration of this case we find no error in the opinion and decree heretofore handed down.

Our foi-mer decree is therefore reinstated and made the final judgment of the court.

O’NIELL, C. J., adheres to his dissent.

OVERTON, J., recused.