Milne v. Girodeau

12 La. 324
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMay 15, 1838
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 12 La. 324 (Milne v. Girodeau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Milne v. Girodeau, 12 La. 324 (La. 1838).

Opinion

Carleton, J.,

delivered the opinion-of the court.

This is a petitory action brought for- the recovery of a lot of ground in the town, of Milneburg, at the end of the rail road, on lake Pontchartrain, composed, according to the plan of that town, of a part of lots 1 and 2, in square No. 1, being sixty feet front on Champes Elyssées street, and extending in depth one hundred and twenty feet, and fronting on the American wharf.

The defendant, who is in possession of the lot, avers, in his answer, that it makes a part of the sea shore, is common property, and that plaintiff cannot have'the ownership thereof.

There was judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

It appears to us that the testimony shows fully, the ground in question, lies much below high water mark, and forms part of the bed of the lake, and is not, therefore, susceptible of piivate owneiship. Louisiana Code, articles 440, 1. 2. 3 and 4.

Where the petition claiming certain lots of ground, is silent on the subject of defendant’s buildings being a nuisance, the plaintiff cannot demand its a-balement.

But the counsel for plaintiff insists, that the buildings erected on thé lot by the defendant, are a nuisance, and ought to be abated under a decree of the court, in the present case. The judgment of the District Court being against him on this point also, he has urged its consideration before this tribunal.

We concur, however, in opinion, with the court below. The petition is silent upon the subject of the nuisance, and we think it would be altogether anomalous, and produce much confusion, if the parties were permitted to raise and settle controversies by argument, which had no relation to the pleadings in the cause.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Todd v. State Through Dept. of Natural Res.
456 So. 2d 1340 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1984)
Gulf Oil Corporation v. State Mineral Board
317 So. 2d 576 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1975)
State v. Placid Oil Company
300 So. 2d 154 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)
State v. Placid Oil Company
274 So. 2d 402 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1973)
Carter v. Moore
248 So. 2d 813 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1971)
Stevens v. State Mineral Board
233 So. 2d 542 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1970)
Coastal States Gas Producing Co. v. State Mineral Bd.
199 So. 2d 554 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1967)
Fred Kuchenig v. The California Company
350 F.2d 551 (Fifth Circuit, 1965)
State v. Cenac
132 So. 2d 928 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1961)
A. K. Roy, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners
111 So. 2d 765 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1959)
California Co. v. Price
74 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1954)
Miami Corporation v. State
173 So. 315 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1936)
State v. Erwin
138 So. 84 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1931)
New Orleans Land Co. v. Board of Levee Com'rs
132 So. 121 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1930)
Bruning v. City of New Orleans
115 So. 733 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1926)
Sapp v. Frazier
26 So. 378 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1899)
United Land Ass'n v. Knight
23 P. 267 (California Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 La. 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milne-v-girodeau-la-1838.