St. Martin Parish Police Jury v. Iberville Parish Police Jury

33 So. 2d 671, 212 La. 886, 1947 La. LEXIS 904
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedApril 21, 1947
DocketNo. 38126.
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 33 So. 2d 671 (St. Martin Parish Police Jury v. Iberville Parish Police Jury) 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
St. Martin Parish Police Jury v. Iberville Parish Police Jury, 33 So. 2d 671, 212 La. 886, 1947 La. LEXIS 904 (La. 1947).

Opinions

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

This is an action to have ascertained and determined judicially the location of the boundary line between the Parishes of St. Martin and Iberville, and the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville has appealed from a judgment of the district court locating the boundary line as contended by the Police Jury of the Parish of St. Martin and decreeing the lands or area between the disputed lines to be situated wholly within the Parish of St. Martin.

The Police Jury for the Parish of St. Martin instituted this suit against the Police .Jury for the Parish of Iberville, alleging that both the Parish of St. Martin and the Parish of Iberville were created by Act No. *447 1 of 1807, and that the boundary line between these parishes was fixed and established by Act No. 130 of 1847; that under Section 2 of this act the true and correct boundary line between St. Martin and Iberville Parishes to the east and northeast of St. Martin Parish, extending from Whiskey Bay (Osea or Oski Bay) running north and - northwest to the south line of Township 6 South, Range 8 East, the south boundary of Pointe Coupee Parish, is now, and since 1847 has been, in the middle or thread of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from its mouth in Whiskey Bay up to its intersection with the south boundary line of Pointe Coupee Parish; that all the lands to the •south and west of this alleged boundary line lie within the Parish of St. Martin, and those north and east thereof in the Parish •of Iberville.

Plaintiff allege® that, notwithstanding the law defining and. fixing this boundary, the Parish of Iberville is arbitrarily and without warrant in law claiming as the boundary “a line commencing at a point .about three miles north of the mouth of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama in the southeast corner of Sec. 60 T. 8 S. R. 8 E., following said south line of Sec. 60 to the back line thereof, said line thence running north, northeast, north, northwest following the back lines of Secs. 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40 and 39 in T. 8 S. R. 8 East and following the back lines of Secs. 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 93 all in T. 7 S. R. 8 East, to a point where it intersects the Township line between T. 6 S. R. 8 East and T. 7 S. R. 8 E. about four and one-half miles west of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama”; that the boundary line as claimed by defendant is erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the proper legal interpretation of Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847; that between the two lines there is an area comprising approximately 10,432.44 acres, and that all of these lands lie to the south and west of, and are situated entirely on the west bank of, the East Fork of Bayou Alabama; that the bed or channel of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama exists today as it did in the year 1847, that no material change since that year has taken place in the channel or course of that bayou, and that it has always been and is at the present time a navigable stream.

It is alleged that the Police Jury of St. Martin Parish pursuant to the provisions of Section 2624 of the Revised' Statutes of 1870, Section 6356, Dart’s Statutes, on February 19,1919, adopted an ordinance for the purpose of ascertaining and fixing the boundary line between the Parish of St. Martin and the Parish of Iberville, and by ordinance appointed Charles Gutekunst, civil engineer, as its surveyor, to meet on September 8, 1919, the surveyor to be appointed by Iberville Parish. The petition alleges a full compliance with Section 2624 of the Revised Statutes of 1870 except that it does not allege that due return of the *448 proces verbal and map of the surveyor of the Parish of St. Martin was made to the presidents of the police juries of both parishes, or that plaintiff has caused the map and proces verbal to be filed and preserved in the offices of the recorders of these parishes as required by law.

The petition further alleges that the Parish of St. Martin is entitled to have the survey of Charles Gutekunst, filed on December 1, 1919, recognized as being officially correct and as correctly fixing and describing the boundary line between the parishes, and, further, that a proper and legal interpretation of Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847 establishes the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin Parishes in the middle or thread of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from its mouth in Whiskey Bay running north and then northwest to the south boundary line of Pointe Coupee Parish, and that all lands west and south of the line are situated wholly within the Parish of St. Martin.

The defendant, Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville, first filed a plea of prematurity aimed at the fact that plaintiff had failed to allege in its petition due return of the proces verbal and map made by. Charles Gutekunst. Thereafter plaintiff amended its petition to show a full compliance with Section 2624 of the Revised Statutes of 1870, and, when this amended petition was filed, the plea of prematurity passed out of the case.

To plaintiff’s petition defendant, Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville, filed an answer, admitting that Iberville Parish was created by virtue of Act No. 1 of 1807, and that the boundary line between that parish and the Parish of St. Martin was fixed and established by Section 2 of Act No. 130 of 1847; that the boundary line between the two parishes which plaintiff’s petition alleges defendant is contending for, and as described in the petition, is the true and correct boundary line.

Defendant’s answer denies all material allegations of the petition, particularly those with reference to the survey made by Charles Gutekunst pursuant to Section 2624 of the Revised Statutes of 1870, and alleges that the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin is, and has since 1847 been, recognized as including within the Parish of Iberville all of the lands lying between the disputed boundary lines, and that all of these lands are shown to lie within the Parish of Iberville by various maps and surveys, all filed in evidence.

Defendant avers that the lands have always been assessed, taxes paid thereon, and muniments of title thereto recorded in the Parish of Iberville, and have been recognized by all persons owning lands situated in this area to be in the Parish of Iberville; that the Police Jury and public officials of the Parish of St. Martin have since 1847 recognized these lands to be within the Parish of Iberville; that following a conference between the officials of these two parishes the officials of the Parish of St. Martin acquiesced in the correctness qf the *449 boundary line between the parishes as contended for by defendant, and pursuant thereto the Police Jury for the Parish! of Iberville on August 1, 1910, passed a resolution declaring and fixing the boundary line in dispute, and that for all of these reasons the Parish of St. Martin and its officials are estopped from now questioning the correctness of the establishing of said line.

The case was submitted to the district court on an agreed statement of facts and exhibits. The trial court rendered judgment decreeing and fixing the boundary line as contended for by the Parish of St.

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

Related

Radcliffe 10, L.L.C. v. Ronald G. Burger and Lynda O. Burger
219 So. 3d 296 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2017)
New Iberia Firefighters Ass'n, Local 775 v. City of New Iberia
140 So. 3d 788 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
Watkins v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
145 So. 3d 237 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2014)
Moreno v. Entergy Corp.
105 So. 3d 40 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2012)
City of DeQuincy v. Henry
62 So. 3d 43 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2011)
Smith v. CITY OF RUSTON
7 So. 3d 44 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
Phillips v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.
997 So. 2d 774 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008)
Wade Phillips v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008
Opinion Number
Louisiana Attorney General Reports, 2008
City of New Orleans v. ASSESSORS'RETIREMENT AND RELIEF FUND
986 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2008)
Colvin v. LOUISIANA PATIENT'S COMP. FUND
947 So. 2d 15 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2007)
Moss v. State
925 So. 2d 1185 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2006)
Rapides Parish Police Jury v. Grant Parish Police Jury
924 So. 2d 357 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2006)
Clifton v. Liner
552 So. 2d 407 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
Boland v. Roussel
495 So. 2d 318 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Nicolaides v. Roussel
495 So. 2d 323 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Turner v. City of Shreveport
437 So. 2d 961 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1983)
Clark v. BOARD OF COM'RS, ETC.
422 So. 2d 247 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 So. 2d 671, 212 La. 886, 1947 La. LEXIS 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-martin-parish-police-jury-v-iberville-parish-police-jury-la-1947.