The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-08-20
THE APPROPRIATION CASE.

The city has fled its answer to the petition
of the Mobile and Texas Railroad Company
asking for an order expropriating parcel o
ground in front Of ST. Marys Market Thu
case is now pending before Judge Hawkins
The following is the answer:
To the Hon. Jacob Hawkins, the Judge of the
Superior District Court Of the Parish Of Or
leans:
To the petition and rule filed in this honor.
able Court by the New Orleans, Mobile and
Texas Railroad Company, represented by Ed
win d. Morgan and James A. Raynor, against
the city of New Orleans, the defendant ap-
pears and denies that the said parties have
any right or authority to represent the SAID
railroad company; and further denies all and
singular the allegations in said petition con-
tanned, except so far as may be hereinafter ex-
pressly admitted.
And further answering, the defendant
alleges that the property sought to be ex-
propriated consists in great measure OF pub
lie streets of the city of New Orleans, and
batture and levee, on which there is public
servitude, for the benefit of the inhabitants
of the city and the public generlly.
That by the said appropriation, it is pro-
posed for the benefit Of said railroad COM
papy, to close and shut out from access to the
the river, to-wit: Delord. North and South
Market streets, st. Joseph and Notre Dame
streets and to obstruct the extension of Gil
rod street toward the river. Also to block up
and close Pile street, and New street from
Calliope to st. Joseph street.
Defendant further alleges that the State of
Louisiana has no other interest or power over
the places sought to be appropriated than
merely as trustee of the use of the said
r. Al Il ~x,1l~l
could not, without violation of that trust,
authorize the appropriation for the use and
benefit Of the railroad company, private
corporation.
Further, that the right of the public and
Of the inhabitants of the city of New Orleans,
can not be exproIriated without adequate
previous compensation. There being no one
or body to whom such compensation can be
made, the right to appropriate does not exist
That the laws of the Legislature relied upon
to sustain the appropriation are unconstitu
tional and void. They attempt illegally to
divest vested rights, to impair the obligation
of contract, and to deprive the citizens of
their rights of property, without due process
of law all Of which is contrary to the Consti-
tuition of the United States.
If, however, it be determined by the courts,
that the plaintiffs have the right to cause the
appropriation of the property, as claimed in
the petition, the defendant must be previous
ly Unidentified for all the damages caused by
the said appropriation.
Defendant expressly denies the right of the
plaintiffs to name the commissioners or ap-
praisers to estimate the damages. +
Defendant further alleges that the city is |
the riparian proprietor of a portion OF the |
properly sought to be appropriated.
Under the laws of the State when the bat |
ture shall have been augmented by accretions |
so as to exceed the extent required tor the |
use of commerce, she has the right to take |
possession as owner of such accretion. The |
said batture is annually increasing. That the |
value of the said batture will be greatly di- |
minished by closing the streets sought to be |
expropriated. which fact should be consid- |
cred in estimating the damages caused by the |
appropriation.
The defendant alleges that the city is the |
owner of public market situated between |
Tchoupitoulas and New Levee, and North |
and South Market streets; that she had de- |
rived large annual revenue from the letting |
out of the stalls in the said market; that the
value of the said market and the revenues
derived therefrom has been destroyed by the
illegal closing of North and South Market
streets, and will so continue if the plaintiffs
be allowed to appropriate and close the said
streets. The city is entitled to be indemni-
fed for the damages thus suffered.
Defendant alleges that there are a large
number of persons owning and interested in
situated on, and in the vicinity of,
the streets and batture soughG to be expropri-
ated, who will be very greatly damaged by
the said appropriation. They should be made
parties to the proceeding for appropriation,
so that they may be Unidentified for the dam
ages caused thereby. The following list
with many others unknown to the defendant,
are thus situated, to-wit Charles Morgan,
Bernard Flash Poller, G. w. Roper, Andrew
Brady, A. Thomson a. Co., A. Berthet & Co.,
& Langles Edward Burke, Sam
uel Laycock, John Ward, VIM. Golding, r.
w. Reynolds, d. S. Rancelli, James Cullen.
John Dubary, Philip Hoelzel, VIM. Creppel,
]. S. Athens & Son, S Grandirs, f. Renan-
din, j. Nitrope, John Hennessey and W. G.
Coyle.
Defendant prays that the above parties may
be made parties to this proceeding, by service
upon them of this answer and that they be 1
cited to appear and defend their interest in
The matter s
Wherefore defendant prays for Judgment /
against the plaintiffs, denying to them the
right of appropriation, or if the said right be
that full and adequate compensa- |
De previously paid to the city for all the DAM /
lges caused by the said appropriation for t
costs, and for all other relief in TIE premises,
'tc., etc. B. F. JONAS, City Attorney.