The opinion
On Rehearing
PONDER, Justice.
We granted a rehearing in this case in order that we might reconsider our decree relating to the severance damages that might be occasioned to the lands of the defendants adjoining the pipe line right-of-way, and the rehearing was limited to this question.
The pipe line right-of-way traverses diagonally a 200 acre tract of land owned by the defendant, Barbe, and an 80 acre tract of land owned by the defendants, Barbe and Moss. There is to be laid a sixteen inch high octane gas pipe line in this right-of-way.
*209 The evidence shows that the best possible use of these lands would be for industrial purposes and that it has not been so used up to the present time. The nearest industry to the lands is some one and one-half to two miles distant. There is no evidence in the record that any one has sought to acquire these lands for industrial purposes. The land is now used for pasturage purposes.
The evidence as to whether or not the pipe line would depreciate the value of the property adjoining the right-of-way is very conflicting and uncertain. Three licensed realtors and the President and General Manager of Cities Service Refining Corporation, an industry located in the vicinity, testified that the pipe line right of way would not damage or depreciate the value of the adjoining property. On the other hand, two engineers, and one of the defendants, testified that it would damage the adjoining property and render it unsuitable for industrial purposes and make it suitable only for pasturage and fapm purposes, thereby reducing its value. These are the only witnesses who testified as to the severance damage.
The testimony is conflicting and is such that the damage, if any, is speculative and remote. We cannot say from the evidence that this property will ever be used in fact for industrial purposes or that it cannot be so used in the future.
We are aware of the decisions of this Court allowing damages when theré is positive proof of such, but the damages claimed must not be anticipated damages, nor remote or speculative. Louisiana Highway Commission v. Lasseigne, 177 La. 440 , 148 So. 672 ; Louisiana Highway Commission v. Paciera, 205 La. 784 , 18 So.2d 193 ; American Tel. & Tel. Company of Louisiana v. Maguire, 219 La. 740 , 54 So.2d 4 ; State of Louisiana Through Department of Highways v. Glassell, 226 La. 988 , 77 So.2d 881 . Therefore, under the circumstances, we cannot say that the defendants have proven by a preponderance of evidence that the adjacent lands would be damaged by the pipe line right of way.
For the reasons assigned, the award in the judgment of the lower court for severance damages is set aside and the judgment is now amended so as to award Alfred M. Barbe $2,775 and Lucius L. Moss $570 and, as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed. All costs to be paid by the plaintiff, The Texas Pipe Line Company. Defendants right to apply for a rehearing is reserved.