33 So. 2d 671 | La. | 1947
Lead Opinion
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *888 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *889 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. *891
1 of 1807, and that the boundary line between these parishes was fixed and established by Act No.
Plaintiff alleges 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, *892
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.
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 *893 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.
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, *894
admitting that Iberville Parish was created by virtue of Act No.
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 of the *895 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. Martin, and decreeing the lands or area between the disputed lines to be situated wholly in the Parish of St. Martin. From this judgment defendant, Police Jury for the Parish of Iberville, has appealed to this court.
On the map made by Charles Gutekunst, civil engineer, on December 1, 1919, filed in evidence, plaintiff and defendant have stipulated that they have superimposed a red line showing the boundary line contended for by the Police Jury for the Parish of Iberville. This boundary line is fully described in plaintiff's petition, as set out hereinabove. We have attached to this opinion a photostatic copy of this map, and for clarity have designated thereon the boundary line contended for by the Parish of Iberville by the letters "A-B-C", and the line contended for by the Parish of St. Martin (which runs up the middle or thread of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from the southeast corner of Section 60 to *896 the township line between Townships 6 and 7 South, Range 8 East) by the letters "A-D".
An examination of this map discloses that only a portion of the boundary line as fixed and defined in Section 2 of Act No.
The title to Act No.
Section 1 of the act fixes the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and Ascension. Section 2 establishes the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin, reading thus: "Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, c., That the line between the parishes of Iberville and St. Martin shall begin at a point where the line between townships eleven and twelve strikes the Atchafalaya commonly called Grand River, or Old River, on its western bank, west of and near Lake Natchez; thence running west along said township line until the same strikes the eastern branch of Bayou Pigeon; thence along themiddle of said Bayou, and middle *897 [EDITORS' NOTE: FIGURE IS ELECTRONICALLY NON-TRANSFERRABLE.] *898 [EDITORS' NOTE: FIGURE IS ELECTRONICALLY NON-TRANSFERRABLE.] *899 of little Bayou Pigeon to the north of Cross Bayou; thencealong the middle of Cross Bayou to its junction with Lake Long, commonly called Murphy's Lake; thence through said lake to a point on its western shore, three miles north of said township line; thence west parallel therewith to lake Chicot; thence along the eastern border of said lake Chicot to the main eastern navigable entrance into Bayou Sorel Bay; thence northwardlyalong the middle of said entrance or pass, and bayou Sorel Bay to the upper Bayou Pigeon; thence along the middle thereof, northwardly to its junction with the Atchafalaya, called Grand River; thence along the middle of Grand River to Oski Bay;thence through the middle thereof to the eastern branch of the bayou Alabama; thence following the said branch, including theinhabitants of both sides thereof, upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupée; the portion north and east of said line to belong to the parish of Iberville, and south and west to the parish of St. Martin."
It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction, well settled in law, that it is the duty of the court to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the statute, and that in construing the statute all parts thereof should be construed together and each part or section should be construed in connection with every other part or section, as the ultimate *900
object is to reach the legislative intent. Reynolds v. Baldwin, 1 La.Ann. 162; Louisi-Western R. Co. v. Village of Duson,
It is equally well settled that the court must give effect to all parts of a statute, if possible, and construe no sentence clause, or word as meaningless and as surplusage if construction giving force to, and preserving, all words can legitimately be found, and the court should construe an expression in a statute so as to give it effect rather than to render it meaningless in respect to context. Clark et al. v. Morse,
The clause "thence following the said branch, including the inhabitants of both sides thereof, upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupée" is certainly ambiguous, and it has been difficult for us to determine the true intent and meaning of the Legislature in placing it in the act. It is a very indefinite call to be found in a boundary description. *901 We are convinced, however, that the Legislature included these words in the statute for some definite purpose, and that they cannot be declared meaningless if we can give them a reasonable interpretation.
It is to be noted that in fixing the boundary line the Legislature, in every other instance when a bayou, bay, or river constituted a part of the boundary, used the expression "thence along (or through) the middle of" said bayou or other watercourse, until the description of the line reached the East Fork of Bayou Alabama. At this point the Legislature changed its terminology and, instead of repeating "thence along (or through) the middle thereof", used the expression "thence following the said branch, including the inhabitants of both sides thereof". We do not think that anyone can question the fact that, when the East Fork of Bayou Alabama was reached in the description, the Legislature had some definite and fixed reason for departing from the phraseology used to describe the course of the boundary along or through the middle of the various other watercourses. Otherwise the same language and identical words could and would have been used as had been employed before in the act, and the description of this part of the boundary would have read "thence along the middle of said branch". It is clear to us that the Legislature did not intend that the middle of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama was to be the boundary *902 line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin.
The acts of 1847, passed by the Legislature over a hundred years ago, were published both in English and in French. The clause "thence following the said branch, including theinhabitants of both sides thereof, upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupée" appears in the French text as "de là, elle suivra la dite branche des deux côtés y compris leshabitations, jusqu'au dessus de la ligne de township entre les townships six et sept, ou la limite sud de la paroisse Pointe Coupée."
The writer of this opinion has obtained a translation of this French clause into English by competent and qualified French scholars, which translation reads as follows: "thence it [the line] shall follow the aforesaid fork including theplantations on both sides, as far up as the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the Parish of Pointe Coupée".
This translation of the French text discloses that it is not so ambiguous and uncertain as the English text. As pointed out in the case of Parish of Lafourche v. Parish of Terrebonne, 34 La.Ann. 1230, we have not lost sight of the rule of our jurisprudence that, when the two texts differ, the English text must prevail, but that, "`when a law, written in the language of the Constitution is doubtful, the *903 sense in which the members of our Legislature, who at that time spoke French understood it, may be safely called to our assistance to explain what is uncertain'".
We concede it to be true that it is very difficult to define or establish a boundary line so as to include the inhabitants on both sides of a watercourse. But this is not true with respect to the plantations located on both sides of such a watercourse, as these are definite areas and can be ascertained with certainty at the time, or shortly after, an act is adopted containing such a course or call.
The fact that the Legislature changed its phraseology shows that it was its intention not to establish the boundary along the middle or thread of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama. We therefore conclude that it was the intention of the Legislature to follow said fork or branch upward so as to include the plantations on both sides thereof within either the Parish of Iberville or the Parish of St. Martin.
In our efforts to throw some light on this complex problem, we have examined the journals of both the House and the Senate of 1847 for the history of Act No. 130 of that year.
According to these records, on March 9, 1847, a Mr. Templet presented to the House of Representatives two memorials of certain inhabitants of the Parish of Iberville relative to the division line between the Parishes of Ascension and Iberville. These *904 memorials were referred to the Committee on Parochial Affairs. On March 12 the chairman of that committee, pursuant to these memorials, reported the following bill: "An act to establish the boundary line between the parishes of Iberville and Ascension." The bill went through its first, second, and third readings, and passed with its title.
On March 12, 1847, the assistant clerk of the House requested the concurrence of the Senate in certain bills, among these being "An act to establish the boundary line between the parishes of Iberville and Ascension". On March 17 this bill underwent its first reading in the Senate. On March 25 on motion of Mr. Kenner the rules were suspended, and the Senate took up "An act to establish the boundary line between the parishes of Iberville and Ascension". This bill then underwent its second reading in the Senate and was, on motion of Mr. Adams, amended and adopted as amended. On motion of Mr. Kenner the rules were again suspended, and the bill underwent its third reading and passed as amended. On motion of Mr. Adams the title of the bill was then amended by adding at its end the words "and the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin". On motion the title was adopted as thus amended.
On March 26 the House of Representatives was informed of the concurrence of the Senate with amendment to title and body of "An act to establish the boundary line *905 between the parishes of Iberville and Ascension, and the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin", and on March 29 the bill was read and postponed. On April 6, Mr. Derbes moved to strike out that portion annexing a portion of the Parish of St. Martin to the Parish of Ascension. This motion was lost. Thereupon Mr. Williams moved to concur in the amendments, and on adoption of this motion it was carried by a yea and nay vote, and the amendments of the Senate were concurred in, and the clerk was directed to inform the Senate of this fact.
Mr. Kenner, who was mentioned in the Senate entry of March 25, 1847, and on whose motion the rules were suspended and the bill read and taken up, was Mr. Duncan F. Kenner, senator from the Parish of Ascension. It is significant that the Mr. Adams who is mentioned in the same senate entry, and who made the motion to amend the bill and place therein Section 2 which defines the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin, and on whose motion the title was also amended by adding the words "and the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin", was Mr. Christopher Adams, senator from the Parishes of Iberville and West Baton Rouge.
The Senate and the House journals clearly disclose that the act which we are now considering had its inception or beginning as a result of two memorials presented to the Legislature of that year *906 by inhabitants of Iberville Parish, and was primarily steered through the Senate by the Iberville Parish senator, on whose motion the title and body of the bill were amended to fix the boundary between Iberville and St. Martin Parishes. If the senator and the representative who represented the Parish of St. Martin in the Senate and the House were present and took any interest in the passage of the bill, the journals fail to disclose this fact.
The title to the act is divided into two parts, the first to define the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and Ascension, and the second the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin, and the act had for its purpose to establish these boundary lines primarily between the Parish of Iberville and the adjoining Parishes of Ascension and St. Martin, or, in other words, the act deals primarily with the Parish of Iberville.
With these facts in mind, considering the act's inception as a result of memorials from residents of Iberville Parish, and the fact that it was steered through the Senate by the senator who represented that parish, we believe that, by the use of the words "thence following the said branch, including the inhabitants of both sides thereof, upwards to the township line", the Legislature intended that the plantations on both sides of the bayou were to be included in the Parish of Iberville. *907
We are supported in this view by subsequent events which occurred during a period of some 40 or 50 years after the date of the act.
Defendant has filed in the record a photostatic copy of a map showing the area in controversy, that is, a part of Powell's map of the Parishes of Pointe Coupee, West Baton Rouge, and Iberville and parts of St. Martin and Ascension, approved by William J. McCullough, surveyor general of the State of Louisiana, in 1858, or 11 years after the adoption of the statute; copies of township maps or plats of Townships 7 and 8 South, Range 8 East, approved by John Lynch, surveyor general of the State of Louisiana, in 1870, the originals of said maps being filed in the archives of the clerk and recorder of the Parish of Iberville since 1877 or earlier, and were no doubt procured by the Police Jury of Iberville Parish pursuant to the provisions of Section 31 of Act No.
All of these maps without exception show the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin to be as contended by defendant-appellant, the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville, and conclusively prove that for a period of approximately 50 years, from the adoption of the act in 1847 to the year 1895, the boundary line between these parishes was at no time considered to be up the middle of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from the southeast corner of Section 60, Township 8 South, Range 8 East, to the township line between Townships 6 and 7 South, Range 8 East, or the south line of Pointe Coupee Parish.
In addition to these maps we find in the record a copy of Thomas S. Hardee's 1871 *909
official map of the State of Louisiana, made pursuant to Act No.
When the Legislature by Act No.
Although the act was passed over 100 years ago, so far as the evidence in the record shows the Gutekunst survey of 1919, made 72 years after the adoption of the act, was the first to establish and show the boundary line to be up the middle of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from Whiskey Bay to the township line. To accept this survey it would be necessary for us to delete from the act and comletely ignore that part of it which includes the inhabitants or plantations on both sides of the bayou in one parish or the other and to give no effect whatsoever to this clause — a clause which we think was deliberately and designedly placed in the act and which has a reasonable meaning and interpretation.
Appellee contends that under this ambiguous clause the Parish of St. Martin would have as much right to claim the irregular sections fronting on the east bank of the bayou as the Parish of Iberville has to claim those situated on the west bank thereof. This may be true, but it is significant to us that for a period of almost 100 years the authorities of St. Martin Parish have made no such claim and have seen fit to ignore the clause, while on the other hand the authorities of the Parish of Iberville have construed the phrase so as to include the irregular sections on the west bank of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama in Iberville Parish and have contended that it was the true intent and object of the Legislature that *911 these sections be included with the boundaries of that parish.
In the record there is an affidavit of Joseph A. Grace, clerk of court for the Parish of Iberville from 1892 to 1926, in which he swears that in the summer of 1910 the district attorney from the judicial district of which St. Martin Parish is a part and a committee of police jurors of that parish came to the Parish of Iberville for the purpose of discussing, settling, and fixing the boundary between these parishes, and that, after a discussion with the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville and after examining records, including township maps, Dickinson's map, and the Hardee maps, the district attorney and the committee from St. Martin Parish advised the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville that the disputed area lying west of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama was really within the Parish of Iberville, and agreed that, if the Police Jury of Iberville Parish would pass a resolution designating the boundary as fixed by these maps, the district attorney and the committee would advise the Police Jury of the Parish of St. Martin to pass a similar resolution.
Both plaintiff and defendant admit that, if Joseph A. Grace were sworn as a witness, he would testify in accordance with this affidavit, but counsel for plaintiff do not admit that the facts stated in the affidavit are relevant or have any probative value. In brief they point out, and we think correctly so, that this committee had *912 no authority to abandon and release any rights of the Parish of St. Martin. However, the record discloses that on August 1, 1910, the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville acted in accordance with the facts shown in the affidavit and adopted a resolution fixing the boundary line between the two parishes by the various maps hereinabove discussed, and this is the line which defendant now claims is the true and correct one.
It is also true that on August 8, 1910, the Police Jury of the Parish of St. Martin met and received the report of the committee appointed to confer with the Police Jury of Iberville Parish relative to the boundary line between these parishes, and the proceedings of this meeting show that final action in the premises was deferred, and the committee was discharged with thanks.
We concede that the action of this committee could not define and establish the boundary line, the fixing of which, as we have pointed out, was strictly a legislative function. Nevertheless its actions indicate that the committee itself accepted the interpretation placed by the Parish of Iberville on the ambiguous clause contained in the act so as to fix the boundary line as contended for by the authorities of that parish.
Under a resolution of the Police Jury of St. Martin Parish, adopted February 19, 1919, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2624 of the Revised Statutes of 1870, a *913
survey of the area in dispute was made by Charles Gutekunst, surveyor and civil engineer, and it is this survey which shows the boundary fixed by Act No.
Following this survey, on August 5, 1920, the Police Jury of the Parish of St. Martin instituted suit against the Police Jury of Iberville Parish to have this survey recognized and approved. Defendant in that suit, Police Jury of Iberville Parish, filed an exception of no cause or right of action. This suit was dismissed on plaintiff's motion on March 10, 1941, some 21 years after it was filed, no further steps having been taken therein in the meantime.
In its answer to the present suit, defendant, Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville, denies service upon it of the ordinance of the Police Jury of St. Martin Parish, adopted February 19, 1919. In the stipulation of facts it is admitted that the records of the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin do not show that the Gutekunst map of 1919 and the proces verbal thereof were filed with the president of the Police Jury of Iberville Parish prior to the institution of the present suit.
We find in the record photostatic copies of patents from the State of Louisiana and a certificate of the register of the State Land Office showing patents as having been *914
issued by the state to every section (except two or three) of land in the disputed area, or on the west bank of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama. These patents in every instance where the parish in which the land is situated is named designate the land described as being in the Parish of Iberville, and the other patents do not name or designate any parish whatsoever. It is therefore evident that the State Land Office interpreted Act No.
According to the stipulation of fact, the greater portion of the deeds, transfers, and muniments of title affecting the lands in the area in controversy, probably as much as 85 per cent thereof, are recorded independently and only in the Parish of Iberville, while some of the deeds, transfers, and muniments of title affecting these lands, probably 15 per cent thereof, are recorded in the Parish of St. Martin. This clearly indicates to us that the majority of the property owners in the disputed area were of the opinion and belief that the property which they owned was situated in the Parish of Iberville.
It is also true that property in the disputed area has been assessed in both parishes, that tax sales of lands in this area have taken place in both parishes, and that in the records of the Parish of St. Martin there is a book of entries, "Abstract Record Parish of St. Martin", certified by John S. Lanier, register, State Land Office, and that this record includes abstracts of entries *915 to every section of land in the disputed area except two sections and a fractional part of one other. We do not, however, find any patents in the record showing the lands in controversy to be situated in the Parish of St. Martin.
Plaintiff has offered in evidence an official map of Louisiana, approved January 12, 1938, compiled by the Board of State Engineers by the authority of Act No.
Since the Powell map of 1858, the township maps covering the area in controversy, certified by John Lynch in 1870, Dickinson's map of 1883, and the Hardee map of 1895, the Legislature of this state has been in session many, many times, and, though each of these maps indicates the boundary line between these parishes to be as contended for by the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville, the Legislature during all this period of time has never indicated by any act that the map makers in compiling these *916
maps did not correctly interpret Act No.
After a careful consideration of the entire record, we are of the opinion that the boundary contended for by the Police Jury of the Parish of Iberville is the boundary as defined and fixed in Act No.
Similar questions have arisen in our sister states, and we find the following expressions from the courts of Ohio and Virginia:
"The condition of things at the time the law was passed, the surroundings and circumstances calling for the law, the manner in which it was received and interpreted by those who were affected by the law, are weighty, evidentiary facts in determining the meaning and intention of the legislature as expressed by the law.
"And the court is further of opinion that in determining the territorial boundaries specified in said acts due weight should be given to the cotemporaneous interpretation placed upon the same by the courts and other lawful authorities within the same and by the population at large residing therein; and that maps of such territory made out or published by authority of law may properly be referred to as persuasive evidence in support of the pretensions of either party to have such weight as consistently with the other testimony in the cause they shall appear to be entitled to." Hamilton v. McNeil et al., 13 Grat., Va., 389. *918
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin, starting at Whiskey Bay, is judicially determined and located pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of Act No.
All costs insofar as are allowed by law are to be paid by appellee, Police Jury of the Parish of St. Martin.
Dissenting Opinion
The General Assembly of the State of Louisiana by its Act No.
This clause is meaningless and, in my opinion, impossible of any reasonable interpretation. I cannot conceive of any logical or reasonable construction that it can be given in the light of the object of the act.
From my appreciation of the French text, which is not only at variance with the English text in the particulars pointed out in the majority opinion but also with respect to the point from which the line in controversy should begin (in the English text the point begins at the eastern branch of Bayou Alabama whereas in the French text it begins at the western branch, a point entirely out of line with the other calls), the matter is not clarified for it is inconceivable to me how a reasonable interpretation of this clause as reflected by the French text, could result in the running of the line in the manner provided for in the majority opinion.
There is nothing in the definition that even remotely authorizes the following of the branch of Bayou Alabama up to the point designated as A on the map and then *920 permits it to suddenly (and without suggestion of any kind from the language used in the act) depart from the said branch in a northerly and westerly direction and to follow what seems to be the southern boundary of irregular Section 60 to point B on the map; to from there follow what appears to be the western boundary of a series of similar irregular sections some distance from the said branch to a point where these irregular sections spread out fan-shape and to then arbitrarily select the southern boundary of irregular Section 74 up to where it strikes the main fork of Bayou Alabama as the place where the line is to be run and from thence to the center of the main fork of Bayou Alabama; to then follow the middle of this bayou in a northeasterly direction to the point that when projected strikes the southern boundary of Sections 52 and 93; to then follow the southern and western boundaries of a series of irregular sections until it strikes a range line at a point where the southern boundary of irregular Section 36 meets with it and then proceed due north from there to point C on the map, where this strikes the southern boundary of Pointe Coupee Parish.
I do not think the general assembly, that had so carefully delineated the boundary up to the point in controversy with precision and certainty, intended to leave the remainder in so much uncertainty, particularly in view of the numerous landmarks that were so easily available and could have been used had it been that body's intention *921 that the course would be as laid down in the majority opinion.
We should not resort to such a strained construction if there is one that is more reasonable and in keeping with the language used that can be given the statute, particularly when to give it such a construction at the same time gives effect to the entire text of the act.
From my translation of the French text this clause reads in English thusly: "* * * from there it (said line) shall follow the said branch (east branch of Bayou Alabama), the two sidesthereof comprising the habitations (plantations), as far up as the township line between township six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupee," and it is my opinion that this French text of the clause is just as meaningless and impossible of being given a reasonable construction as is the English text unless it is read and considered with the clause immediately following which points out that the portion (obviously the habitations or plantations) north and east of the said line is to belong to the parish of Iberville and those habitations or plantations to the south and west of such line are to belong to the parish of St. Martin. Otherwise the latter clause would be unnecessary and therefore meaningless for it goes without saying that the location of these two parishes was already definitely established and it would be nothing more than redundancy to say that the portion of the state lying on the Iberville *922 side of the line would form a part of Iberville parish and that on the St. Martin side would form a part of St. Martin parish.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent.
Dissenting Opinion
The only question in this case is whether the dividing line between the two parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama all the way up from Osca (or Oski) Bay to the township line which forms the southern boundary of the Parish of Pointe Coupee, or shall follow that branch of Bayou Alabama upwards for a distance of only three miles, and then turn off in a northwestern direction and follow the southern boundary of the irregular section 60 to the rear boundary of that section (a distance of a mile and a half away from the East Branch of Bayou Alabama), and thence go upwards along the irregular course contended for by the Parish of Iberville.
It is not disputed — and in fact is stated and shown in the majority opinion in this case — that the dividing line between the two parishes does run through the center of the East Branch of Bayou Alabama from Osca (or Oski) Bay upward for a distance of three miles.
In the French text of Section 2 of Act No.
Commencing at the mouth of the East Branch of the bayou, at Osca Bay, the statute declares: "thence, it shall follow the said branch (de là elle suivra la dite branche), the two banks thereof comprising habitations (des deux côtés y compris les habitations), upward to the township line between townships six and seven (jusqu'au dessus de la ligne de township entre les townships six et sept)"
The French word suivra is a form of the verb suivre and means "shall follow". The word "follow" — suivre — in the sense in *924 which the surveyors use it, means, according to all of the dictionaries, "to proceed along, as a route or course". Therefore, to say that the dividing line between the two parishes shall follow the said branch (suivra la dite branche) of Bayou Alabama upward to the township line between townships six and seven (jusqu'au dessus de la ligne de township entre les townships six et sept) means that the dividing line shall run along the center of the said branch of Bayou Alabama, all the way up to the township line. Certainly, it does not mean that the line shall follow the center of the East Branch of the bayou for a distance of only three miles upward towards the township line and then turn abruptly northwestward and run a distance of a mile and a half away from the East Branch of the bayou, and thence follow the zigzag line, or series of lines, which the Parish of Iberville is contending for, out in the dense cypress swamp where there is nothing to show or indicate a boundary line.
In this connection, it seems impossible that the Legislature intended to adopt as the dividing line between the two parishes, the irregular and indefinite series of lines which the court is now adopting as the line which shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama (elle suivra la dite branche) upward to the township line between townships six and seven (jusqu'au dessusde la ligne de township entre les townships six et sept). The irregular or broken line which the majority of the members of the court have adopted crosses *925 the Main Branch of Bayou Alabama about three miles below the township line between townships 6 and 7; and, at the place of crossing, the line follows the middle of the Main Branch of Bayou Alabama for a distance of about a quarter of a mile. And, stranger still, the line intersects the range line between ranges 7 and 8, about half a mile below the township line. At that point the range line is about a mile and a half west from the East Branch of Bayou Alabama.
The cause of the error of doubting that the East Branch of Bayou Alabama is the boundary line between the two parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, from Osca Bay all the way up to the township line between townships 6 and 7, is the fault in the translation of the parenthetical phrase, des deux côtés ycompris les habitations. That expression was translated in the English text, erroneously, thus: "including the inhabitants of both sides thereof". The literal translation of the phrase, according to Spiers and Surenne's French Pronouncing Dictionary, would be "the two banks of which — meaning the two banks of the East branch of Bayou Alabama — comprising habitations." Leshabitations does not necessarily mean the habitations, but means simply habitations. In many instances, such as in this instance, it is proper to omit the article "the", in translating from French to English, — e. g. les habitations.
I do not find in Spiers Surenne's French Pronouncing Dictionary, in the edition *926
of 1867, or of 1915, or of 1930, that the French wordhabitation means plantation. The only definitions given for the French word habitation are habitation, abode, place of abode,dwelling, residence, place of residence. The wordplantation is not mentioned at all as a definition of the French word habitation. Nor is the French word habitation given as a definition for the English word plantation in that part of Spiers and Surenne's Dictionary which translates the English words into French. I mention this because I do not believe that there were any plantations on the East Branch of Bayou Alabama in the year 1847, when Act 130 of that year was enacted. We must remember that that statute was enacted before the enactment of the swamp land grants of 1849 and 1850, Act of March 2, 1849,
Referring again to the parenthetical phrase "des deux côtés ycompris les habitations" — the most harmful mistake that was made in the translation was in translating the word compris as meaning "including". Compris is a participle, a form of the French verb comprendre. It is true that one of its meanings is "include", but that is not its only meaning. According to the French dictionary it means also to comprehend, tocomprise, to contain, etc. As we all know, it is sometimes not possible to give a literal translation to a French expression and retain its sense. According to my understanding the wordcontaining or comprising would be a more appropriate definition for the French word compris, as it is used in Act No.
By translating the phrase, des deux côtés y compris leshabitations, as meaning "including the plantations on both sides" the majority opinion makes it necessary to add or interpolate the name of the parish in which the so-called plantations are to be included. And the court concludes that these so-called plantations, on both banks of the bayou, should be included not in the Parish of St. Martin but in the Parish of Iberville. The reason for that conclusion, as I understand, is (1st) that it was in response to "two memorials of certain inhabitants of the Parish of Iberville relative to the division between the Parishes of Ascension and Iberville" that the bill to define the boundary line between those two parishes was introduced in the Legislature, and (2nd) that Mr. Adams, who made the motion to amend the bill by adding the words "and the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin", was the senator from the Parishes of Iberville and West Baton Rouge.
I respectfully submit that in our interpretation of this statute we should adhere to the words of the Act and be not governed by any supposed intention on the part of the sponsor or sponsors of the bill in the Legislature. We must remember that the statute represents the expressions of a majority of the members of both houses of the Legislature. If they had intended to say that the habitations, or so-called plantations, on both sides of the East Branch of Bayou Alabama, should be included in the Parish *929 of Iberville, they would have said so in the statute. I see no good reason for supplying the statement that thehabitations or so-called plantations on both sides of the East Branch of Bayou Alabama should be included in the Parish of Iberville. The object of the statute, as expressed in both languages, in its title, was to define the boundary line between the two parishes. And the statute declares that the dividing line between the two parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama upward to the township line between townships six and seven, which is the northern boundary of both parishes, being the southern boundary of the Parish of Pointe Coupee.
I agree, of course, with the statement in the majority opinion that "The interpretation of this statute is a judicial function", and with the statement "that the map compilers could not legally fix or establish any boundary other than that defined and called for by the act", — Act No.
For that reason my opinion is that Powell's map, approved in 1858, should be dealt with merely as showing the source and origin of the error made in subsequent maps, such as Dickinson's map, made in 1883, and Hardee's map of 1871, and the Hardee map of 1894. In this connection I agree with the statement in the majority opinion that the Hardee map of 1871 does not locate the dividing line between the two parishes "with any degree of certainty". *930 The photolithographs of T. 7 and 8 S., R. 8 E., filed in the recorder's office in Iberville Parish in 1877, of course, do not purport to show the dividing line between the two parishes.
The survey made by Charles Gutekunst, surveyor and civil engineer, in 1919, adheres to the declaration in the statute that the dividing line between the two Parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama from Osca Bay upward to the township line between townships six and seven. And the notes which appear as a legend on his map declare: "This map is made from approved maps and field notes of the U.S. Government and actual surveys made by me", — Charles Gutekunst.
The official map compiled by the Board of State Engineers under authority of Act No.
However, I rest my opinion in this case upon the declaration in the statute that the *931
dividing line between the two parishes, Iberville and St. Martin, shall follow the East Branch of Bayou Alabama, — the two banks thereof comprising habitations, — upward from Osca Bay to thetownship line between townships six and seven, — and upon the declaration in the majority opinion that "the interpretation of this statute is a judicial function" and "that the map compilers could not legally fix or establish any boundary other than that defined and called for by the act", — Act No.
Dissenting Opinion
I subscribed to the original opinion herein, as I was of the view that the controverted language contained in Section 2 of Act No.
Further consideration of the matter, however, has convinced me of the error of my former views. The portion of the statute in dispute reads "* * * thence through the middle thereof to the eastern branch of the bayou Alabama; thence following the *935 said branch, including the inhabitants on both sides thereof, upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupée; * * *". (Italics mine.) Everyone is in agreement that the uncertainty resulting from the above quoted language is brought about by the parenthetical clause "including the inhabitants on both sides thereof". Eliminating that clause, the pertinent language would read "thence following the said branch (eastern branch of Bayou Alabama) upwards to the township line between townships six and seven, or the southern boundary of the parish of Pointe Coupée." Thus, it seems clear enough that the Legislature intended (and expressed its intention) that the boundary line between Iberville and St. Martin Parishes should follow the eastern branch of Bayou Alabama upwards to the township line to the point where the bayou struck the southern boundary of Pointe Coupée Parish.
However, since the parenthetical clause "including the inhabitants on both sides thereof" has been used and is directly connected with the otherwise clear provisions, it, too, must be read with the whole and its effect considered so that the entire provision can be given a meaning, if that is possible. Everyone concedes that the clause, as it appears in English, cannot make sense when applied to a boundary line. On the other hand, according to the translations of the French text of the statute, which have been made by Chief Justice O'Niell and *936 Justice Fournet, the clause is shown to be merely descriptive of the area surrounding the eastern branch of Bayou Alabama, rather than to include plantations within one parish or the other, as found by the scholars who translated the French text into English for the author of the original opinion.
I do not for a moment assert that the translations of the dissenting justices are to be given more weight than the translation of the scholars, to whom the French text was referred, as I am not sufficiently versed in the French language to have an independent opinion. I assume that each translation is entitled to equal dignity. This being so, it now seems manifest to me that the translations of the dissenting justices should prevail for the reason that those translations of the parenthetical phrase blend and fit with the other language of the statute so as to make the entire provision clear and readily understandable. Conversely, the other translation of the clause, when read with the language with which it is associated, destroys the import of that language, rendering it unintelligible and incapable of interpretation.
As a consequence, the court, in concluding in favor of the Parish of Iberville on the theory of contemporaneous construction, has been unable to fix the boundary following the eastern branch of Bayou Alabama "upwards to the township line between townships six and seven" and has substituted in its place and stead a boundary *937 line based on ancient surveys, which are completely in discord with the provisions of the legislative act.
I respectfully dissent.
Addendum
O'NIELL, C. J., adheres to his dissenting opinion.
FOURNET, J., adheres to his dissenting opinion.
Addendum
The writer adopts in full the reasons of the author of the original opinion, insofar as said reasons are based upon the application of the doctrine of contemporaneous construction relative to the fixing of the boundary line between said parishes beginning at the southeast corner of Section 60, Township 8 South, Range 8 East; thence following the south line of said Section 60 to the back line thereof; thence running north, northeast, north, northwest, following the back or west lines of Sections 60, etc., as shown in the original decree. But, in accepting the findings of the author of *932 the original opinion on the basis of contemporaneous construction, it becomes necessary to amend and modify the original decree herein rendered so as to fix that portion of the boundary line between the parishes of St. Martin and Iberville beginning at Whiskey (Oski) Bay to the Southeast corner of Section 60.
In the original opinion, in fixing the boundary line as the center of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama from Whiskey Bay to the southeast corner of Section 60, Township 8 South, Range 8 East, the majority of the Court was misled in relying upon the admissions in the agreed statement of facts upon which this case was tried, the briefs, and the argument of counsel for both Parishes, that this portion of the boundary line was not in dispute. Because of these admissions, the writer almost fell into the same error. However, the petition and the answer put at issue this portion of the boundary line and, as pointed out in the original opinion, this is a matter for judicial determination. Hence, the admissions are not binding upon the parties nor the Court and since the matter is before us, it should be disposed of at this time.
The maps relied upon in the original opinion, namely, the Powell Map of 1858, the Maps of Townships 7 and 8 South, Range 8 East, the Dickinson Map of 1883, and the Hardee Map of 1895, place the boundary line between said parishes as "the East Bank of the East Fork of Bayou Alabama beginning at Whiskey Bay, and *933 thence running north along said bank to a point opposite to the southeast corner of Section 60, Township 8 South, Range 8 East, on the west bank of the river, and thence crossing said bayou to the southeast corner of Section 60, etc., as set out in the original decree. Since the writer is affirming this decree solely upon the contemporaneous construction based upon these maps, it becomes necessary to amend the original decree only as to that portion of the line between Whiskey Bay and the southeast corner of Section 60, in order to conform with the boundary line as fixed by said surveys and maps.
For the reasons assigned, the original decree rendered herein is amended to read, as follows:
The boundary line between the Parishes of Iberville and St. Martin is judicially determined and located pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of Act No.
All costs of court to be paid by plaintiff-appellee.
