Louque v. Louisiana Levee Co.
Louque v. Louisiana Levee Co.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff, who owns a plantation in the parish of St. John the Baptist, near the point ou the Mississippi river where a large crevasse in the levee occurred on the nineteenth of April, 1871, alleges that he sustained great damage and loss from the overflow of his plantation and consequent destruction of his crop that year, result
The answer is a general denial. The company specially deny that they were bound under their contract with the State to repair, strengthen or reconstruct, at the time alleged in the petition, the levee therein described, and that they are not answerable for the damages, if any, which the plaintiff may have sustained from the cause by him alleged.
There was judgment in the court below in favor of the Levee Company, and the plaintiff has appealed.
We find by referring to the laws passed in 1871 on the subject of levees, that the Louisiana Levee Company formed itself into a corporation, under the general laws of the State, on the eleventh day of February, 1871. Acts of 1871, p. 29. That this act was confirmed by the Legislature on the twentieth of February of the same year. Acts of 1871, p. 29, By the act approved February 20, section 2, p. 33, it is declared that “the Louisiana Levee Company shall take charge of, manage, control, construct, maintain, repair and keep in repair all the levees in this State on the Mississippi river, its tributaries and outlets,” etc. In the following section, p. 34, it is provided that “ said corporation shall have full right and authority, at all times to enter upon and occupy as far as necessary, by their surveyors and engineers, contractors, agents and servants, together with all necessary carts, animals, tools, materials and equipments, all such lands as may be necessary, and to remain as long as may be necessary for the purpose of doing and performing all aud singular matters and things required to be done and performed in and about the inspecting, building, construction, maintenance, repairing and management of the levees as aforesaid,” etc.
The powers granted to the Levee Company over the entire subject are ample and exclusive. But the purpose of the law is clearly that the work of constructing, repairing and strengthening the levees, shall be done under plans, surveys, measurements and directions, to be furnished by a board or commission of engineers for the appointment of which the law provides in act No. 4, acts of 1871, page 33. Section one recites, “ that in order to maintain a uniform and perfect system,
The acceptance and ratification of the act forming the contract between the State and the company took place on the twenty-eighth of February, 1871. Acts of 1871 — act 27, page 64.
Section ten of the act of twentieth February, 1871, page-37, clothes the company with the power of obtaining from a court of competent jurisdiction a writ of maudamus commanding any officer of the State who may fail, neglect or refuse to do any of the matters or things he shall be required to do by the provisions of this act, to do and perform the matter or thing so required of him.
We see then by a review of the several provisions of the acts relar ting to the construction and repair of the levees, that although the company is invested with very general control and management of
The acceptance was made on the twenty-eighth of February. The appointment then was to be made within thirty days or prior to the last day of March. But no engineer was appointed within the thirty days as required, nor was an appointment made until September following.
The crevasse took place on the seventeenth of April.
It seems clear that the company was at that time without power to act. No engineer was appointed. The Governor had the entire month of March within which to make, the appointment, with the exception of the last day of that month. The company could only proceed by mandamus after the expiration of the thirty days within which the Governor had to appoint. Only twenty days intervened between the expiration of that delay and the occurrence of the crevasse. A reasonable time would have been required for the survey of the work and the report, before which the company could not proceed to execute the work. Within that brief space of time it is manifest the company could not, in pursuance of the rules and requirements of law, have performed the work. No responsibility, therefore, rested upon them for not repairing and strengthening the levee at the point where the crevasse happened.
The decree of the lower court we think correct.
Judgment affirmed.
Rehearing refused.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- N. Louque v. Louisiana Levee Company
- Status
- Published