Chaney v. State Mineral Board

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Chaney v. State Mineral Board

428 So. 2d 880, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 7865

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 22, 1983

DocketNos. 82-CA-0488, 82-CA-0489

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 428 So. 2d 880 (Chaney v. State Mineral Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chaney v. State Mineral Board, 428 So. 2d 880, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 7865 (La. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, Judge.

The State Mineral Board, defendant-appellant, appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding possession of a portion of the Amite riverbed to plaintiffs. We affirm.

[881]*881BACKGROUND FACTS

On November 12,1980, the State Mineral Board issued a notice to prospective bidders regarding the lease sale of a portion of the Amite riverbed in East Feliciana and St. Helena Parishes. On December 17, 1980, a group of riparian landowners (Harb, et al) in St. Helena Parish filed a possessory action alleging that the notice disturbed their respective possessions of the riverbed.¹ Similarly, on December 30,1980, a group of riparian landowners (Chaney, et al) in East Feliciana Parish also filed a possessory action regarding their possessions of the riverbed.² Plaintiffs also sought and obtained a preliminary injunction postponing the lease sale. These two suits were consolidated and subsequently tried on May 12, 1981, in the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Feliciana.

At trial, the plaintiffs testified as to the various acts of possession concerning the riverbed: fishing, swimming, dredging the bed for sand and gravel, and posting “no fishing-swimming” signs on the banks. No land titles encompassing the riverbed were introduced into evidence for establishing constructive possession under La.C.C. Arts. 3437, 3498. All of the plaintiffs testified it was commonly assumed in the community that their possession extended to the thread or middle of the river. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, awarding them possession of the riverbed from their respective riparian tracts to the thread of the stream.

On appeal, defendant urges that the trial court erred in granting possession to plaintiffs because they failed to show the extent of their possession by enclosures.

POSSESSION WITHIN ENCLOSURES

Defendant correctly points out that since the plaintiffs did not introduce any titles for establishing constructive possession, they must base their claim on acts of corporeal possession of the riverbed. However, defendant contends that the plaintiffs’ possession of the riverbed must be within enclosures. Norton v. Addie, 337 So.2d 432 (La.1976).

Understandably, the record shows no evidence of fences or enclosures being placed in the bed of the river. But this does not defeat plaintiffs’ action. Although the jurisprudence has espoused the requirement of enclosures to show possession, the necessity of a fence, wall, etc., is not justified or supported by the Civil Code. Cheramie v. Cheramie, 391 So.2d 1126 (La.1980). Furthermore, the type of corporeal actions necessary to support possession depend on the nature of the land and the use to which the land is destined. Cheramie, supra; Hill v. Richey, 221 La. 402, 59 So.2d 434 (La.1952).

Here, the corporeal acts exercised by plaintiffs consist of swimming, fishing, posting signs, and dredging for sand and gravel. These actions are certainly consistent with the, nature and use of a riverbed. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s judgment declaring plaintiffs in possession of the riverbed.

DECREE

Accordingly, for the above-expressed reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EDWARDS, Judge.

The State Mineral Board, defendant-appellant, appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding possession of a portion of the Amite riverbed to plaintiffs. We affirm.

[881]*881BACKGROUND FACTS

On November 12,1980, the State Mineral Board issued a notice to prospective bidders regarding the lease sale of a portion of the Amite riverbed in East Feliciana and St. Helena Parishes. On December 17, 1980, a group of riparian landowners (Harb, et al) in St. Helena Parish filed a possessory action alleging that the notice disturbed their respective possessions of the riverbed.¹ Similarly, on December 30,1980, a group of riparian landowners (Chaney, et al) in East Feliciana Parish also filed a possessory action regarding their possessions of the riverbed.² Plaintiffs also sought and obtained a preliminary injunction postponing the lease sale. These two suits were consolidated and subsequently tried on May 12, 1981, in the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Feliciana.

At trial, the plaintiffs testified as to the various acts of possession concerning the riverbed: fishing, swimming, dredging the bed for sand and gravel, and posting “no fishing-swimming” signs on the banks. No land titles encompassing the riverbed were introduced into evidence for establishing constructive possession under La.C.C. Arts. 3437, 3498. All of the plaintiffs testified it was commonly assumed in the community that their possession extended to the thread or middle of the river. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, awarding them possession of the riverbed from their respective riparian tracts to the thread of the stream.

On appeal, defendant urges that the trial court erred in granting possession to plaintiffs because they failed to show the extent of their possession by enclosures.

POSSESSION WITHIN ENCLOSURES

Defendant correctly points out that since the plaintiffs did not introduce any titles for establishing constructive possession, they must base their claim on acts of corporeal possession of the riverbed. However, defendant contends that the plaintiffs’ possession of the riverbed must be within enclosures. Norton v. Addie, 337 So.2d 432 (La.1976).

Understandably, the record shows no evidence of fences or enclosures being placed in the bed of the river. But this does not defeat plaintiffs’ action. Although the jurisprudence has espoused the requirement of enclosures to show possession, the necessity of a fence, wall, etc., is not justified or supported by the Civil Code. Cheramie v. Cheramie, 391 So.2d 1126 (La.1980). Furthermore, the type of corporeal actions necessary to support possession depend on the nature of the land and the use to which the land is destined. Cheramie, supra; Hill v. Richey, 221 La. 402, 59 So.2d 434 (La.1952).

Here, the corporeal acts exercised by plaintiffs consist of swimming, fishing, posting signs, and dredging for sand and gravel. These actions are certainly consistent with the, nature and use of a riverbed. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s judgment declaring plaintiffs in possession of the riverbed.

DECREE

Accordingly, for the above-expressed reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

428 So. 2d 880, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 7865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaney-v-state-mineral-board-lactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack