Case Name: New Orleans, Fort Jackson & Grand Isle Railroad vs. Mrs. Ada C. McNeely
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1895-06-03
Citations: 47 La. Ann. 1298
Docket Number: No. 11,790
Parties: New Orleans, Fort Jackson & Grand Isle Railroad vs. Mrs. Ada C. McNeely.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 1298–1303

Head Matter:
No. 11,790.
New Orleans, Fort Jackson & Grand Isle Railroad vs. Mrs. Ada C. McNeely.
Effect of Remittitur on Appeal. — A. remittitur by defendant of part of bis claim in reconvenfciott, after the verdict has been rendered, does not prejudice the ap - pellant’s right of appeal.
Filing of Transcript. — The transcript of appeal was filed within the delay allowed.
Jury’s Valuation of Property. — Although the defendant does not interpose an answer, or file any claim for the value .of property, a decree of expropriation must be preceded by and based upon a valuation of the property by the jury.
Verdict. — A jury’s verdict is entitled to great weight in the expropriation proceedings, fixing the value of land sought to be expropriated, and will be annulled only when manifestly erroneous.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Rightor, J.
James Wilkinson for Plaintiff, Appellant.
Thomas F. Maher for Defendant, Appellee.
Argued and submitted May 8, 1895.
Opinion handed down June 3, 1895.
Opinion refusing rehearing June 21, 1895.
On Motion to Dismiss.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
The plaintiff sues to expropriate a small triangular lot of ground situated in Algiers. Plaintiff tendered to the defendant the sum of fifty dollars for the lot, which the latter declined to accept.
The defendant denies plaintiff's allegation, and reconvened for damages and attorney's fees, which she fixes at more than three thousand dollars. The jury's verdict sustained the prayer to expropriate the land and assessed the value of the land expropriated at five hundred dollars. After the verdict the defendant abandoned his demands in reconvention for damages, and entered a remittitur of one dollar, thereby reducing the verdict tn four hundred and ninety-nine dollars, and judgment was signed for the amount last stated.
The defendant moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction ratione materise; on the grounds, further, that the transcript was not filed in time, and, lastly, that the plaintiff did not deposit the amount of the judgment with the sheriff.
With reference to the jurisdiction of this oourt, ratione materise, it is settled that a remittitur after the verdict has no more effect on the rights of the appellant than a remittitur has after judgment in a ease not tried by jury. It is governed by the same rule in so far as relates to appellant's right of appeal.
In Gayden vs. Railroad Company, 39 An. 269, 271, the court decided that a remittitur entered after the verdict did not prejudice the defendant's right to appeal, and cited several decisions in support of the court's conclusion.
RELATIVE TO THE FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT.
The delays had not elapsed, and the plaintiff was within the required time when it was filed in this court on the 4th of April.
The order of appeal was granted on the 19th day of March. The plaintiff's transcript was filed within the three judicial days allowed by this court and the delay of fifteen days provided by a special statute. R. S. 1490; C. P. 589.
REGARDING A DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT WITH THE SHERIFF.
The effect of the deposit by the corporation is to pass title from the owner to the corporation. It does not relate to the right of appeal. It remains unaffected by the deposit.