Case Name: Armand Bossu, Dative Testamentary Executor, vs. New Orleans, Fort Jackson & Grand Isle R. R. Company
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1897-06-29
Citations: 49 La. Ann. 1593
Docket Number: No. 12,481
Parties: Armand Bossu, Dative Testamentary Executor, vs. New Orleans, Fort Jackson & Grand Isle R. R. Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 1593–1595

Head Matter:
No. 12,481.
Armand Bossu, Dative Testamentary Executor, vs. New Orleans, Fort Jackson & Grand Isle R. R. Company.
Conceding that the proof is clear to the effect, that an orange orchard was set on fire hy the sparks emitted from a passing locomotive, or by the Are having been communicated to it in a railroad company’s employees carelessly burning off its right of way,no damages can be awarded the owner who has abandoned it, and allowed it to run to waste and become so dilapidated and overgrown with weeds and grass that the extinguishment by Are would prove a benefit rather than an injury to him.
APPEAL from the Twenty-second Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines. Hingle, J.
Henry Chiapella for Plaintiff, Appellant.
James Wilkinson and E. Howard MaOaleb for Defendant, Appellee».
Argued and submitted June 18, 1897.
Opinion handed down June 29, 1897.
Rehearing refused December 13, 1897.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
The grounds of the motion are (!) that'this court has no jurisdiction ratione material over this cause; (2) that the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff is fictitious, exaggerated and inflated, far more than he had reason to believe had been sustained, and only made for the purpose of giving this court appellate jurisdiction of the controversy.
This suit is for damages the deceased is alleged to have-sustained by the destruction of his orange orchard by ñre through the fault and negligence of the defendant, its servants and agents, which are placed at the sum of five thousand two hundred and one dollars; and on the trial there was judgment in favor of the defendant rejecting the plaintiff's demands, and from which the latter prosecutes this appeal.
While it may be possible — aye, probable — that we may, upon a consideration of the evidence, come to the conclusion that the judgment should be affirmed, we do not regard it as a case which should be summarily dismissed without an examination.
The suit presents all the insignia of a serious demand and an appeal seriously prosecuted.
The motion is denied.