Court Opinion

ID: 9669673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:04:42.579392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:58.724667
License: Public Domain

McCALEB, Justice
(dissenting).
I am in accord with the view of the Court of Appeal. See Koerber v. City of New Orleans, La.App., 76 So.2d 466. It appears to" me that the majority err in considering this case as though it were an expropriation suit involving the taking of plaintiff’s property when factually the land had long before been appropriated to public use.1 This, of course, did not Operate as a divestiture of plaintiff’s title, *917which remains unaffected, for defendant, although vested with the power of eminent domain, did not file an expropriation proceeding but appropriated the land to a public use by building an airport thereon and, unquestionably, plaintiff has had knowledge of such appropriation for many yeprs. It is settled by a long line of cases that, under such circumstances, the land has been burdened with a servitude created thereon.by plaintiff’s implied assent to the public- use and that, although the city has npt - acquired a fee title to the- property, plaintiff cannot now treat the city’s occupancy' as tortious, being restricted to a personal -action for compensation for the value of'the servitude and such other damages that' she may have sustained as of the date of Hts establishment. See St. Julien v. Morgan L. & T. R. Co., 35 La.Ann. 924; McCutchen v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 118 La. 436, 43 So. 42; Taylor v. New Orleans Terminal Co., 126 La. 420, 52 So. 562, 139 Am.St.Rep. 537; Pons v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 131 La. 313, 59 So. 721; Roussel v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 152 La. 517, 93 So. 758 and Gumbel v. New Orleans Terminal Co., 197 La. 439, 1 So.2d 686.
In Pons v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., supra, the court stated [131 La. 313, 59 So. 729]:
“Under repeated decisions, plaintiff ¿ánnot recover over and above the value of the land (now in possession of defendant for railroad use) at the ,. time it went into the possession, and use of the defendant.”
In Gumbel v. New Orleans, Terminal Co., it was observed [197 La. 439, 1 So.2d 689]:
“ * * * The right to compensation for the value of the property taken, and damages to the adjacent land is limited to the value of the portion of the property occupied and 'mined as of the date when the defendant occupied and began to use the property, and for any damages which, might be done to the remainder of the property by such use.” (Italics mine.)
That the above-stated rule is sound will be readily seen when consideration is given to the fact that the taking, occupancy and use of the land is not regarded as illegal in the eyes of the law, there being the establishment of a servitude thereon for public use with the implied consent and acquiescence of the owner by virtue, of her long silence notwithstanding full knowledge of the appropriation. Hence, since the servitude is valid, the compensation due therefor is necessarily • fixed as of the date of. its creation.
I respectfully dissent.

. Hence, the eases relied on as sustaining the ruling of the court, viz., New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. v. Lavergne, 138 La. 949, 70 So. 921; City of New Orleans v. Moeglich, 169 La. 1111, 126 So. 675 and State v. Landry, 219 La. 721, 53 So.2d 908, which merely set forth the general rule that in expropriation proceedings the value of the property is to be fixed as of the date of the expropriation suit, are clearly inapplicable.