Case Name: New Orleans, Fort Jackson & Grand Isle Railroad Co. vs. Mrs. Elizabeth Barton
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1891-01
Citations: 43 La. Ann. 171
Docket Number: No. 10,667
Parties: New Orleans, Fort Jackson & Grand Isle Railroad Co. vs. Mrs. Elizabeth Barton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 171–176

Head Matter:
No. 10,667
New Orleans, Fort Jackson & Grand Isle Railroad Co. vs. Mrs. Elizabeth Barton.
relative to Jurisdiction
1. The defendant’s allegations in her answer, and the amount she claims, secure to her the right of appeal.
2. The plaintiff and appellant, therefore, has ratione material a similar right of appeal.
3. The court has jurisdiction of the appeal.
On xiijí Meííits.
1. Tlie testimony o£ tlie witnesses is conflicting and not satisfactory.
Tlie price paid for tlie property, tlie improvements placed thereon since its purchase, the assessment for taxes, are necessarily given great weight in fixing tlie value of the property sought to he expropriated.
2. Defendant’s demand for damages occasioned by the smoke, noxious vapors and loud jarring sounds caused by tlie engine and rolling stock, is not supported by the testimony; in addition, the amount prayed therefor is not decreeable under the cases of 85 An. 646, 88 An. 687.
The damages arising from the depreciation in the value of tlie property, and from the difference in rental, are not proven.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.
'James Wilkinson for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Brolla & Augustin for Defendant and Appellee

Opinion:
Jurisdiction.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
It is suggested in appellee's brief that the amount of the judgment appealed from, viz: $650, is-insufficient to give this court jurisdiction; for the defendant has not prayed that the judgment be amended and increased to an amount to give jurisdiction.
The defendant and appellee, with reference to value, alleges that the land is worth one thousand dollars, and that, if the land be expro- ' priated, it will occasion loss and depreciate the value of the other lots she owns to an amount of at least one thousand five hundred dollars.
Under these allegations the defendant had the right of appeal. The total prayed for by her exceeds the minimum limit of the Constitution.
The plaintiff has therefore a similar right of appeal. State vs. City, 41 An. 159.
This court has jurisdiction of the appeal.