Case Name: DYNAMIC EXPLORATION, INC., et al. v. J. Burton LeBLANC et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1978-07-03
Citations: 362 So. 2d 734
Docket Number: No. 62379
Parties: DYNAMIC EXPLORATION, INC., et al. v. J. Burton LeBLANC et al.
Judges: SUMMERS, J., dissents and will assign reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 362
Pages: 734–736

Head Matter:
DYNAMIC EXPLORATION, INC., et al. v. J. Burton LeBLANC et al.
No. 62379.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
July 3, 1978.
Dissenting Opinion Sept. 12, 1978.
David M. Ellison, Jr., Baton Rouge, for defendants-applicants.
Thomas J. Kliebert, Patterson, Michael K. Heltz, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-respondents.
SUMMERS, J., dissents and will assign reasons.
DIXON, J., concurs. (See Per Curiam)

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Writ granted. The court of appeal decision is affirmed, for reasons similar to these set forth in Shell Oil Company v. Board of Commissioners of Pontchartrain Levee District, 336 So.2d 248 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976), certiorari denied, 338 So.2d 1156 (La.1976).
La.Const. of 1921, Art. 4, Section 2, provided "In all cases the mineral right on any and all property sold by the State shall be reserved Decisions of this court, have consistently held that, for purposes of this article, levee districts were a state agency, performing a state function and administering state lands; they were therefore subject to this constitutional provision prohibiting alienation after 1921 of mineral rights owned by the state. Ac cordingly this constitutional prohibition of any alienation of mineral rights by the state after 1921, Lewis v. State, 244 La. 1039, 156 So.2d 431 (1963), likewise bars after 1921 divestiture through acquisitive prescription of a levee district's mineral interest in (state) lands owned by and administered by it. Shell Oil Co. v. Board of Com'rs. of Pontchartrain Dist., 336 So.2d 248 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 338 So.2d 1156 (La.1976) ("No error of law."), Noted, 37 La.L.Rev. 317-18 (1977).
Accordingly, we affirm the decisions of the previous courts, at the cost of the defendants-appellants-relators.
AFFIRMED.
SUMMERS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
DIXON, J., does not agree with the explanation of Stokes v. Harrison but otherwise subscribes to the opinion.
. Our earlier constitutions provided no such prohibition against alienation of state minerals. The 1974 constitution continues this prohibition and adds — confirming levee district jurisprudence (cited below) and overruling a school board decision (Stokes v. Harrison, 238 La. 343, 115 So.2d 373 (1959)) — that "mineral interests of the state, of a school board, or of a levee district shall not be lost by prescription." It also prohibits loss by prescription of the "lands" of such agencies, the chief transferees of large quantities of state lands.
. See, e. g., State ex rel. Board of Com'rs, etc. v. Grace, 161 La. 1039, 1044, 109 So. 830, 832: "The district is a state agency, created and continued in existence by the state with the foregoing [state function] in view. The state, should it transfer the land to the district, including the mineral rights, in accordance with the grant made by it, would not be parting with the property within the meaning of the constitutional section cited, but would only be placing it under the control of one of its agencies . . . . The land would, to all practical intents and purposes, still be the property of the state."
We recognized the invalidity of any post-1921 alienation of mineral rights by a levee board, in a series of decisions which permitted the alienation or loss of the levee district rights only because we held that the mineral rights were effectively alienated before 1921. Lum Chow v. Board of Com'rs, etc., 203 La. 268, 13 So.2d 857 (1943); Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., Inc. v. Board of Com'rs, etc., 200 La. 1049, 9 So.2d 409 (1942); Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Allison, 196 La. 838, 200 So. 273 (1941); Barnett v. State Mineral Board, 193 La. 1055, 192 So. 701 (1939).
See also: Yiannopoulos, 37 La.L.Rev. 317-18 (1977); Hardy, 24 La.L.Rev. 228-29 (1964); Note, 24 La.L.Rev. 416 (1964).
Decisions such as Board of Com'rs, etc. v. Hardtner, 164 La. 632, 114 So. 494 (1927); State v. Standard Oil Co., 164 La. 334, 113 So. 867 (1927), and Ellerbe v. Grace, 162 La. 846, 111 So. 185 (1927) held that, because of the grant of the land to the levee district with the power of alienation, the levee district was empowered to convey the land or grant mineral leases and receive mineral royalties rather than some other officer or agency of the state. The court's holdings are summarized by the conclusion of the opinion in Hardtner, 164 La. 651, 114 So. 500: " so long as these grants remain unrepealed by an act of the Legislature, the lands in the levee district and belonging to the state [Italics in the opinion], with all of the mineral rights and timber on such lands, remain subject to acceptance and sale or other disposition by the boards of commissioners of the levee districts, respectively, and are not subject to any other disposition by the register of the state land office . . . under the general land laws of the state." The Hardtner decision recognized that the sale by the levee board after 1921 of such state lands nevertheless, by virtue of La.Const. Art. 4, Section 2, (1921), reserved the mineral rights. 164 La. 640, 114 So. 494.
. This decision correctly distinguished Stokes v. Harrison, 238 La. 343, 115 So.2d 373 (1959), as inapplicable to the loss of mineral rights after 1921 by a state agency, performing a state function, as to state lands administered by it and in its name. Despite some broad language in the decision, Stokes concerned only the effect of the constitutional provision upon private land purchased by a local school board in the ordinary course of commerce and soon thereafter reconveyed to a private owner. See 24 La.L.Rev. 421 (1964). The effect of this decision was only to hold that La.Const. Art. 4, Section 2, did not apply to lands acquired by a local subdivision in the ordinary course of commerce from a private purchaser for a non-state purpose, when those non-state lands were placed back into private ownership without having been used for a state purpose.