Court Opinion

ID: 9658803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:14:46.355069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:59.710502
License: Public Domain

On Motion to Correct the Decree.
PER CURIAM.
In our original decree we reversed and set aside the judgment of the District Court, *23declared the attempted expropriation proceedings null and void, and held plaintiff to be the owner of the property in dispute.
In a motion to correct the decree, the plaintiff has called our attention to the fact that our decree is silent as to that part of the District Court’s judgment which awarded plaintiff damages in the sum of $1,625, and that defendant has neither appealed from the judgment nor answered the appeal. Plaintiff asks that our decree be amended by a per curiam so as to affirm the money judgment, or, in the alternative, that we grant a rehearing in order to consider awarding the full amount of damages claimed by plaintiff.
As the defendant has neither appealed nor answered the appeal, we are without authority to disturb that part of the judgment which awarded plaintiff damages in the sum of $1,625. Code of Practice, Articles 592 and 888; Nurdin v. Bounanchaud, 152 La. 853, 94 So. 420; Schwandt v. Nunez, La.App., 71 So.2d 583; Freeman v. World Ins. Co., La.App., 61 So.2d 892.
' Our decree is accordingly amended so as to add thereto an additional decree affirming that part of the judgment of the District Court which awards plaintiff damages in the sum of $1,625. The alternative application. for rehearing is denied.