Scovell v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co.

Citations

• 117 La. 459
• 41 So. 723
• 1906 La. LEXIS 722

Syllabus

<p>1. Expropriation — Prescription — Applicability.</p> <p>Mrs. Volcy Amet v. Texas & Pacific Railroad Company, 41 South. 721, reaffirmed, to the effect that the prescription of two years under Act No. 96, p. 142, of 1896, applies only where the property has been taken in pursuance of a judgment of expropriation.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 18, Cent. Dig. Eminent Domain, §§ 783-785.]</p> <p>2. Prescription — Minors.</p> <p>Prescription of 10 years does not run against minors.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 33, Cent. Dig. Limitation of Actions, §§ 390-398.]</p> <p>3. Railroads — Right op Wat — Payment by Railroad Company.</p> <p>A plantation was seized and sold after a railroad had appropriated and had been for some time using a right of way through it, and afterwards was repurchased, no mention being made in either sale of the right of way. Seld, that the right of way did not pass with the plantation at the sheriffs’ sale, and that the obligation to pay for it, which the railroad owed to the owners at the time of the appropriation, continued to be a debt due to these owners after they had repurchased the property.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 18, Cent. Dig. Eminent Domain, §§ 405-416.]</p> <p>4. Same — Dedication.</p> <p>From this debt the railroad was not liberated by the act of the owners in laying off the land into streets and squares, according to a map placed of record, and selling lots as per the map. A railroad cannot acquire property by dedication, and no one pretends that the right of way in question belongs to the public.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>