State v. Broussard

The state of Louisiana, through its Attorney General, instituted this suit, claiming the ownership of two alleged strips of land, containing 2,690 acres, more or less, bordering on Vermilion bay, in the parish of Vermilion, lying partly in T. 15 5., R. 3 E., and R. 4 E., and partly in T. 14 5., R. 4 E., as shown on a plat annexed to plaintiff’s petition. Plaintiff also alleged that the defendants were slandering its title to the land, trespassing thereon, and molesting its lessee, Dudley J. LeBlanc, in his trapping operations. It prayed that defendants be ordered to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, for judgment perpetuating the injunction, and decreeing it to be the owner of the lands. Defendants answered, denying they were trespassers and that plaintiff owned the property. They averred that they were the true owners thereof by patents thereto from plaintiff itself, and prayed that the suit be dismissed. After a trial thereon, the rule nisi was discharged, and a preliminary injunction was refused. From this judgment plaintiff appealed, and the transcript was filed in this court under the No. 27857 of the docket. Subsequently, the case was tried on its merits, resulting in another judgment in favor of the defendants, rejecting plaintiff’s demands. Plaintiff also appealed from this judgment, and the transcript was filed in this court under the No. 28805 of the docket. Counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the transcript in No. 27857 should form part of the transcript in No. 28805, and that both appeals should be consolidated, heard, and decided at the same time.

The numerous defendants, impleaded originally and by intervention subsequently, contend that, with the exception of section 16 and irregular section 40 of T. 15 S., R. 3. E., they are the owners, either directly or by mesne conveyances from the state of Louisiana, the plaintiff herein, of all the lands bordering Vermilion bay in township 15 south, ranges 3 and 4 east and township 14 south, ranges 4 and 5 east, from the mouth of Bayou Vermilion to the east line of the parish of Vermilion; and that they acquired the lands from their common author as fractional sections and lots in fractional sections according to the official plats of survey thereof by the federal government on *135 file in the office of the register of the state land office.

Tfie plaintiff, however, questions tfie correctness of the. government plats and surveys, wfiicfi were made by Rigfitor and Mc-Collam in tfie years 1837 and 1838, and has introduced in evidence in this suit a plat and survey made in tfie year 1925 by tfie surveyor employed by it, which it contends shows tfie true situation.

It appears from tfie record that tfie federal government, on completion of a survey of its tfien western boundary along tfie Sabine river to tfie Gulf of Mexico, contracted witfi Rigfitor. and McCollam to extend tfie survey along tfie “margin” of tfie gulf, including tfie islands, as far eastward as tfie island of Grand Terre, to connect witfi existing surveys, so as to make “a regular connection along tfie whole coast, * * * except about six miles immediately west of tfie Nementor” (Mermentau).

In tfie prosecution of their work, tfie contractors surveyed a number of townships and parts of townships. Among these were tfie whole of township 15 south, ranges 3 and 4 east, and tfie sections of township 14 south, range 4 east, bordering on Vermilion bay. According to tfie field notes, tfie surveys were run from tfie west, and tfie western lines of each township were surveyed and connected in regular order. Due to tfie intervening marshes, apparently, no attempt was made to connect these surveys witfi tfie surveys of tfie high lands on tfie north. It appears from tfie record, as we understand it, that in tfie course of tfie work Rigfitor and McCollam placed a post or monument on tfie line between townships 14 south, range 3 east and 15 south, range 3 east at tfie point of its intersection witfi Bayou Vermilion. This point was also established by John Boyd and John Rykoski, deputy United States surveyors, in 1S47 and 1856, respectively. The surveyor employed by plaintiff, however, ignored this corner, wfiicfi is on tfie west bank of tfie bayou, and made no attempt to re-establish the lines surveyed by Rigfitor and McCollam. He initiated fiis survey at a point lying six miles to tfie north at a post placed by one C. A. Loustalot, civil engineer, supposedly at tfie northwest corner of township 14 south, range 4 east. 1-Ie tfien proceeded southward, and established a corner as ■ common to township 14 south, ranges 3 and 4 east, and township 15 south, ranges 3 and 4 east. This resulted in a shift to tfie westward for a distance of 44 chains, according to one of plaintiff’s expert witnesses, and of 32 chains, according to another of its expert witnesses, of all tfie lines surveyed by Rigfitor and McCollam, causing the shore line of tfie townships extending in a northeasterly direction to be thrown northwesterly into tfie interior and away from tfie bay, creating tfie alleged excess acreage herein claimed by tfie plaintiff. Tfie effect of tfie survey, if it be controlling, is disastrous to tfie pretensions of tfie defendants, since, out of 5,269.10 acres sold them by tfie state of Louisiana, approximately 2,411 acres are thrown into Vermilion bay on tfie west, and tfie remaining 2,841 acres are shifted into tfie marshes about one-fialf a mile away from tfie shore line.

Tfie plats of survey of Rigfitor and McCollam were approved on December 8, 1842, by tfie surveyor general of Louisiana, “as being strictly comformable to tfie field notes of tfie survey thereof, wfiicfi have been approved and wfiicfi are on file in this office.” But they also bear notations, under date of December 23,1842, to tfie effect that, since their approval, it appears by the testimony of tfie chain carriers that the' surveys were but partially made in tfie field. Plaintiff argues, therefore, that no reliance can be placed on tfie surveys, and that tfie traverse wfiicfi Rigfitor and McCollam purport to have *137 made along the shores of Vermilion hay was not so made; that, if it was made at all in the field, it was done north of the hay, at a distance varying from a quarter to a half of a mile from its shore line. Plaintiff contends the meander line of Rightor and Mc-Collam must be disregarded, and the line established by its surveyor must be accepted as being correct.

It is undoubtedly true that the surveys of Rightor and McCollam are open to suspicion as to their correctness because of the notations placed on the plats under date of December 23, 1842. Nevertheless, the experts for plaintiff stated, on cross-examination, that they had no doubt that Rightor and McCollam had surveyed the line along Vermilion bay; and it further appears that, irrespective of the interior lines, the outline of the survey made by plaintiff’s expert, when superimposed thereon, coincides with the outline of the survey made by Rightor and^ McCollam. It is also true that the latter survey has never been expressly repudiated by the governmental officials, so far as the record shows, and the sales by the state of Louisiana, plaintiff herein, to the defendants and their authors in title were made on the basis of the designations, descriptions, and acreage of the lands as set forth on the plats of that survey on file in the state land office. For more than 50 years these defendants and their authors have paid, in good faith, the taxes which were levied and collected by the state on these lands. In these circumstances, our conclusion is that plaintiff is estopped from denying the correctness of the plats and surveys on which it acted in making the sales to the defendants and their authors, and that it cannot be permitted to repudiate those sales.

After the government had sold lands according to a survey and plat, it cannot dispute the truth of such survey and plat. St. Paul, S. & T. R. Co. v. First Division of St. Paul & P. R. R. Co., 26 Minn. 31, 49 N. W. 303.

A party to a contract cannot pronounce its own deed invalid, although that party is a sovereign state. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87, 3 L. Ed. 162.

For the reasons assigned, the judgments herein appealed from are affirmed.