Case Name: Walter STERKX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GRAVITY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF RAPIDES PARISH, La., Defendant-Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1968-06-18
Citations: 214 So. 2d 552
Docket Number: No. 2343
Parties: Walter STERKX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GRAVITY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF RAPIDES PARISH, La., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before LEAR, HOOD, and SAVOY, JJ-.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 214
Pages: 552–557

Head Matter:
Walter STERKX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GRAVITY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF RAPIDES PARISH, La., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2343.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.
June 18, 1968.
On Rehearing Oct. 3, 1968.
Writ Refused Nov. 15, 1968.
Downs & Gremillion, by James C. Downs, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellant.
Mansour & Lauve, by Alfred Mansour, Alexandria, for defendant-appellee.
Before LEAR, HOOD, and SAVOY, JJ-.

Opinion:
LEAR, Judge.
Petitioner is the owner of an undivided one-fifth interest in certain valuable property situated partly within the corporate limits of the City of Alexandria, Louisiana, and the remainder adjoining said limits.
Defendant, a body corporate with power to sue and be sued, constructed a drainage canal across this property. Plaintiff alleged trespass, unlawful and uncompensated confiscation, and certain incidental damages. He asked total recovery in the sum of $25,194.40.
Respondent admits the construction of the drainage facilities upon the described property, as alleged. It sets forth, however, that this construction was had in accordance with an agreement entered into by and between defendant and all of the co-owners of the property. It sets forth that written agreements were entered into it and Mr. Sterkx's co-owners, and further alleges that the said construction was in strict compliance with an agreement entered into between it and Mr. J. B. Nach-man, who had full authority from plaintiff to negotiate on plaintiff's behalf for a contract with defendant; that Mr. Nachman agreed to accept the price of $2,574.40 for. his part of the compensation to be paid for the drainage servitude, and " that a copy of the agreement was delivered to his said attorney, and it was agreed by all that the said plaintiff would execute the agreement."
Defendant then asserts that plaintiff was estopped to repudiate the agreement made by Mr. Nachman and should have and recover judgment only for the sum of $2,-574.40.
A great portion of the evidence adduced, plus a lengthy opinion written by the district court, and the briefs of both appellant and appellee deal with the question of whether Mr. Nachman had apparent authority from petitioner to enter into such an agreement; whether petitioner's clothing Mr. Nachman with such apparent authority would estop him from repudiating an agreement made by Mr. Nachman, and whether a servitude can be granted by oral title or achieved by estoppel.
However, these complex and troublesome problems need not concern us here. It is a fundamental rule of our law that when negotiating parties agree that the final contract will be reduced to writing, then that agreement is an integral part of the contract itself. Therefore, until such agreement is reduced to writing there is no contract, and either party may retract or refuse to abide by what had been orally agreed upon. See Ferre Canal Co. v. Burgin, 106 La. 309, 30 So. 863; Barrelli v. Wehrli, 121 La. 540, 46 So. 620; Breaux Bros. Construction Co. v. Associated Contractors, 226 La. 720, 77 So.2d 17, as examples of many, many cases deciding this point.
As pointed out above, the defendant affirmatively avers in its answer that it was agreed upon between the parties that a formal, written instrument should be signed by petitioner and the entire record is rife with testimony to that effect. That being the case, no binding contract came into being between plaintiff and defendant, and it now becomes necessary for this court to assess the damages done by defendant's unauthorized entry upon the land owned, in indivisión, by petitioner.
As stated above, plaintiff sued not only for the value of the actual land taken, but also asked for severance damages as to a portion of the entire tract, and alleged other items of substantial damage such as the destruction of valuable trees, the establishment of spoil banks, and the changing of natural drainage upon the remaining property, the cost of the construction of bridges across said canal necessary for the full utilization of plaintiff's property, etc.
However, plaintiff, in his brief before this court, concedes that he is restricted to compensation based on the fair market value of the property actually taken.
Defendant relied entirely upon its defense of estoppel, and offered no testimony to confute the evidence of petitioner's experts who testified as to the value of the land taken.
The uncontradicted testimony establishes that the value of the land taken is the sum of $6,032.80, and thus the award made herein should be increased to that amount.
Therefore, this court affirms the judgment of the lower court in granting judgment for plaintiff, but increases the amount of that award from the sum of $2,574.40 to the sum of $6,032.80. Defendant to pay all costs of this appeal.
Judgment amended, and as amended, affirmed.