Case Name: James M. ARMSTRONG v. RED RIVER, ATCHAFALAYA AND BAYOU BOUEF LEVEE BOARD
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-05-07
Citations: 278 So. 2d 496
Docket Number: No. 52559
Parties: James M. ARMSTRONG v. RED RIVER, ATCHAFALAYA AND BAYOU BOUEF LEVEE BOARD.
Judges: SUMMERS, J., dissents and will assign reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 278
Pages: 496–501

Head Matter:
James M. ARMSTRONG v. RED RIVER, ATCHAFALAYA AND BAYOU BOUEF LEVEE BOARD.
No. 52559.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 7, 1973.
Dissenting Opinion June 11, 1973.
Walter M. Hunter, Jr., Alexandria, for plaintiff-applicant.
Edwin O. Ware, Dist. Atty., Gus Voltz, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for defendant-respondent.
Provosty & Sadler, LeDoux R. Provosty, Jr., Alexandria, for amicus curiae.

Opinion:
SANDERS, Chief Justice.
We review a judgment of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal maintaining a servitude granted by plaintiff to the Red River, Atcahfalaya and Bayou Bouef Levee Board for the construction and maintenance of canals, ditches and levees. We affirm the judgment.
In 1949, plaintiff granted the Levee Board a servitude over a tract of land containing 22.76 acres by a written instrument, in the following terms:
"I moreover give and grant to said Levee Board full acquittance; release and discharge from any and all liability to me for any lands and improvements used, or destroyed, and any and all damage that has been caused, or will be caused, my said property by the building of the U. S. Bouef Cocodrie Diversion Channel Canal/Levee, giving and granting to said Levee Board, its successors or assigns, the right to use all or any part of the above described property for any purpose with, or connected with construction or excavation of canals or ditches, storage or placement of spoil or spoil dirt, storage or placement of any and all machinery and/or equipment, irrigation, storage or empounding of water, levee construction or relocation and flood control or anything incidental thereto."
In consideration of the release clause, plaintiff received the sum of $4,738.00.
Shortly after acquiring the servitude, the Levee Board constructed a large drainage canal, known as the Bayou Bouef-Cocodrie Diversion Canal, which crossed the western part of plaintiff's land but did not cover the entire tract. Thereafter, the canal was regularly inspected and maintained. The maintenance included the periodic use of heavy equipment, such as draglines, bulldozers, and trucks.
On December 16, 1969, plaintiff filed suit to cancel the servitude as to that portion of the tract beyond the banks of defendant's canal because of non-usage for ten years.
The district court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and restricted the defendant's servitude to the drainage canal and the land within one hundred feet of the canal.
The Court of Appeal reversed, one judge concurring and one judge dissenting. The holding of the Court was that the servitude was a continuous, apparent servitude and, because no act contrary to the servitude under Louisiana Civil Code Article 790 had been shown, the prescription of non-usage had not run. We agree.
Under the 1949 contract, the servitude was to encompass "the right to use all or any par.t of the . . . property . for any purpose with or connected with construction or excavation of canals or ditches . . .". This contractual provision is the law between the parties. It governs the extent and mode of use. LSA-C.C. Art. 722; Clause v. Broussard, 146 So.2d 828 (1962), writ ref. 243 La. 1004, 149 So.2d 763 (1963); Kaffie v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co., La.App., 184 So.2d 595 (1965).
All servitudes are classified according to use and appearance. With regard to use, Article 727 of the Louisiana Civil Code defines servitudes as either continuous or discontinuous :
"Continuous servitudes are those whose use is or may be continual without the act of man. Such are aqueducts, drains, view and the like. Discontinuous servitudes are such as need the act of man to be exercized. Such are the right of passage, of drawing water, pasture and the like."
Servitudes are apparent or non-apparent, on the basis of appearance, Civil Code Article 728 provides:
". . . Apparent servitudes are such as are to be perceivable by exterior works; such as a door, a window, an aqueduct. Non-apparent servitudes are such as have no exterior sign of their existence; such, for instance, as the prohibition of building on an estate, or of building above a particular height."
From the above articles, it is clear that the present servitude is a continuous, apparent servitude of drain. See La. Irrigation and Mill Co. v. Pousson, 262 La. 973, 265 So.2d 756 (1972); Poole v. Guste, 261 La. 1110, 262 So.2d 339 (1972). This classification has important legal effects on prescription.
Under Article 790 of the Louisiana Civil Code, an act contrary to the servitude is required to start prescription running against such a continuous servitude. Examples of contrary acts are enumerated in Civil Code Article 791:
"Acts contrary to the servitude are the destruction of works necessary for its exercise; as the stopping of spouts which carry off rain, or of windows or apertures which are necessary to the exercise of the right of view."
The record in the present case reflects no act contrary to the servitude. The canal was maintained and kept free of obstructions. Hence, no act occurred to trigger the running of prescription.
Plaintiff, however, relies heavily upon Articles 798 of the Louisiana Civil Code which provides:
"If, on the contrary, the owner has enjoyed a right less extensive than is given him by his title, the servitude, whatever be its nature, is reduced to that which is preserved by possession during the time necessary to establish prescription."
He contends that, because only a portion of the tract has been used, the area of the servitude is reduced under the above Article to the portion used.
Although the contention is substantial, we find it to be without merit for two equally valid reasons.
Article 798 deals with the mode of servitude, that is, the manner of exercise, and not the land area subject to the servitude. This becomes evident when the Article is construed in pari materia with Civil Code Articles 796 and 797. Article 796 introduces the subject of mode, and the following two articles develop the subject in more detail. Article 798 refers to a less extensive right, not to a less extensive area. Our conclusion in this regard is fortified by an examination of the recognized sources of the Article. See Louisiana Legal Archives, Project of the Civil Code of 1825, p. 91 (1937); Domat, part I, Book I, Tit. 12, Sect. 6, No. 5; Toullier, vol. 3, No. 700.
As to area, the law is well-settled that the use of any part of a continuous tract of land under a servitude preserves the servitude on the entire tract. LSA-C. C. Arts. 656, 789; Trunkline Gas Co. v. Steen, 249 La. 520, 187 So.2d 720 (1966); Ohio Oil Co. v. Ferguson, 213 La. 183, 34 So.2d 746 (1946); Lee v. Giaque, 154 La. 491, 97 So. 669 (1923).
Moreover, no provision of Article 798 disturbs the regular rule for the beginning of prescription. As to the beginning of prescription, Article 790 controls. It stipulates that for continuous servitudes, prescription for non-usage begins "from the day any act contrary to the servitude has been committed." As we have already observed, no act contrary to the servitude has been shown. Hence,- the running of prescription here has never begun.
Finally, plaintiff relies upon Article 780 of the Louisiana Civil Code. This Article deals with servitudes of passage in which the titles fail to designate their breadth and manner of use. Obviously, the Article has no application to a servitude of drain in which the area and manner of use have been designated.
We hold, therefore, as did the Court of Appeals, that the servitude held by the Levee Board is unimpaired by the prescription of nonusage.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed at plaintiff's costs.
SUMMERS, J., dissents and will assign reasons.
DIXON, J., dissents with reasons.
. 261 So.2d 298; writ granted, 262 La. 301, 263 So.2d 44.
. If I enjoy a right more extensive than that which is granted me by my title, if I have used (or done) more than I am permitted, I have, in every case, preserved my right; the lesser is included in the greater. But, I cannot prescribe for the surplus, and I can always be compelled to reduce the use of the servitude, con-formably to the title, unless it be a continual and apparent servitude, prescripti- ble without title. If I have enjoyed a right less extensive than my title, the servitude, whatever be its nature, is reduced to that which is preserved through use, during the time necessary to establish prescription. (3 Tul. No. 700, translation) .