# Texas Pipe Line Company v. Barbe > Supreme Court of Louisiana · January 16, 1956 · 229 La. 191 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9670507 ## Case - **Full name:** The TEXAS PIPE LINE COMPANY v. Alfred M. BARBE and Lucius L. Moss - **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana - **Decided:** January 16, 1956 - **Citations:** 229 La. 191; 85 So. 2d 260 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Moise - **Judges:** Hawthorne, Moise, Ponder, McCaleb - **Cited by:** 78 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9670507 ## Opinion text MOISE, Justice (dissenting). The opinion on rehearing disallows all severance damages. Severance damages were allowed because of the harm done, in the opinion of the district court judge, to the remaining land. His judgment is now reversed on rehearing, as well as the original judgment of this' Court. The reservation of the right to apply for a rehearing should have been made. The object of judicial investigation is the ascertainment of truth. Evidence is *211 the means by which that is effected. It variously adjusts itself, to perform its task in most certain and direct ways some things are self-evident — others are proven by the senses. But, there are other subjects which address themselves to no palpable standards of truth, but to human experience and the demonstrative physical facts. The trial judge, from the testimony of the experts, concluded that the property was an ideal location for industrial purposes and that such, on his part, was predicated in the main on expert testimony. Mr. Calhoun is an engineer of long experience, and he concluded his opinion on the basis of demonstrative physical facts. He said that this area is one of the prime industrial areas of the Gulf Coast; that it was in close proximity to the ship channel; that there were railroad facilities; that it has access to a highway close by; and that there was a paved concrete highway from Sulphur passing only a few hundred feet from this property. He stated that it was adequately separated from the other industries, and that the fact that there is some intervening space would, in his opinion, make it more suitable than if it were closer to existing industries. (Tr. Vol. 3, page; 346) ; that there is abundant available fuel in this area; that there are thirty-three oil and gas fields within an area of thirty miles of Lake Charles, which is only a few miles from this property; that not only are gas and oil available in sufficient quantities for fuel, but they are available for basic materials for petro-chemical industries that might locate in this area. (Tr. Vol. 3, page 347); that both fresh and salt water, necessary for some industries, are available. (Tr. Vol. 3, page' 348); that nearby industries make available by-products needed for certain industries; that it is a common practice to locate processing industries adjacent to such industries as are already located in this area. (Tr. Vol. 3, pages 348, 349). With all of these magnificent facilities available for commercial purposes, it would hardly be fitting to say that such land is suitable only for pasturage purposes. Mr. Coleman, a witness for the Pipe Line, admitted that this area offered very attractive advantages to industries, mentioning cheap fuel, sufficient labor, good climate, and availability of by-products from nearby industries. (Tr. Vol. 3, page 215). Mr. Hines, also a witness for the Pipe Line, said that this area was highly suitable for industries, and mentioned, in addition to the desirable features, the availability of sufficient quantities of salt and sulphur, which are essential to the production of certain chemicals. We merely mention these demonstrative facts to show that this record contains an abundance of evidence why we should not adopt mere legal- abstractions or things that are supposed. The defense witnesses were of the opinion that the running of this servitude diag *213 onally through the two tracts wa's ruining the land for future industrial purposes. See the testimony of Barbe, Tr. Vol. 3, pages 237, 238, 239; Chalkley, Tr. Vol. 3, page 258; Knapp, Tr. Vol. 3, page 270. The industrial engineer, Mr. Calhoun, was of the same opinion, and he said that no industry would want a pipe line on its property. Mr. Calhoun also said that no industry would locate a building close to a pipe line. (Tr. Vol. 3, page 365). These facts demonstrate severance damages that should be imposed for the remaining land not taken. Mr. Mann, President and General Manager of the Cities Service Refining Company, said that it would not be a good situation to have men going through his plant day and night inspecting, maintaining, repairing and replacing pipe lines, and that if he had one on his property he would move it. Mr. Calhoun said that it was possible that an industry might want the sixty-five acres remaining of Tract One, but that he could think of no industry locating in this area that would want small tracts. (Tr. Vol. 3, page 375). Now, as a fact, what did the Pipe Line do after expropriating this property? Tt cut Tract No. 2 into two triangles, and by cutting a triangular piece of land off of Tract No. 1 it has greatly lessened the opportunity to sell the land to industries of any size, and has almost certainly made it impossible to sell to larger industries. Before this expropriation of the right-of-way, the defendants had 280 acres of land in one block. Now they have two triangular shaped tracts and one irregular shaped tract. In Tract No. 1 there is cut off 15 acres, which rendered that acreage virtually valueless for industrial purposes, if we are to take the testimony of the expert witnesses of both sides. The judgment on rehearing allows for a valuation of the land of $1,000 an acre. The 15 acres separated from the land, which rendered it unfit for industrial purposes, has a valuation of.only $250 an acre, and that is for pasturage purposes. From the very concession of the opinion on rehearing, there must be severance damages as to the difference of land at $1,000 an acre for 15 acres of land, which is reduced in value from $1,000 to $250. That on its face shows a severance damage of $11,250. So, how could there be any dis-allowance of all severance damages? There are two facts that stand in bold relief. The trial judge saw and heard the witnesses, and he is in a better position than we to evaluate their testimony. The trial judge is familiar with the location of the property. The facts and the demonstrative physical facts are the true and only foundation for belief. I, therefore, respectfully dissent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9670507. Public record. Not legal advice.