Buras v. Salinovich
97 So. 748, 1923 La. LEXIS 1962, 154 La. 495 (1923)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state-issued hunting license does not grant the holder the right to hunt or trap on private property against the owner's explicit prohibition, as state conservation laws regulating hunting do not abrogate a landowner's fundamental right to exclude others.
Facts:
- Manuel Oscar Buras owns a tract of over 5,000 acres of uncultivated, unfenced marshland.
- The land is subject to tidal overflow but is not legally considered public 'seashore'.
- Six defendants, including Anthony Salinovich, each held a state-issued license to hunt and trap wild animals.
- The defendants entered Buras's land to hunt and trap for profit, following a local custom.
- Buras posted numerous notices along the land's boundaries forbidding trespassing.
- Buras also published notices in local newspapers and employed a patrolman to warn trespassers.
- Buras's employee personally delivered written demands to each of the defendants, instructing them to cease hunting and trapping on the land.
- The defendants refused to comply with the demands and continued their activities on Buras's property.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, Manuel Oscar Buras, sued six defendants in the district court (trial court) seeking an injunction to prevent them from trespassing on his land to hunt and trap.
- The defendants filed an answer and a reconventional demand (counterclaim) asking for a judgment declaring their right to hunt on the land and for damages.
- The district judge denied Buras's request for a preliminary injunction.
- After a trial on the merits, the district court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, rejecting the plaintiff's demand and recognizing the defendants' right to enter the land.
- Plaintiff, Manuel Oscar Buras, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Louisiana state conservation law, which prohibits hunting on cultivated or pasture lands without written consent, implicitly grant licensed hunters the right to hunt on uncultivated, unfenced private marshland against the landowner's explicit prohibition?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Niell, C. J.
No. The state conservation law does not grant licensed hunters the right to enter private property against the owner's will. The court reasoned that the Louisiana Civil Code explicitly grants a proprietor the right to forbid any person from entering their land to hunt. The defendants argued that a provision in the state conservation act (Act 204 of 1912), which specifically requires written consent to hunt on 'cultivated or pasture lands,' implicitly repealed the landowner's right to forbid hunting on uncultivated lands. The court rejected this interpretation, holding that the provision was a restriction or limitation on a hunter's rights, not an extension of them. The statute's specific mention of cultivated land simply removes any doubt that written consent is needed there; it does not strip owners of uncultivated land of their pre-existing right to exclude trespassers. The court also affirmed that while the state owns the wildlife in its sovereign capacity, this does not negate a landowner's right to control physical access to their property.
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirms the fundamental property right to exclude others, holding that it is not easily abrogated by implication through state regulatory schemes. It clarifies that a state-issued license, such as a hunting license, confers a privilege to engage in a regulated activity but does not create an affirmative right to trespass on private land. The court's narrow interpretation of the 'expressio unius' maxim demonstrates a judicial preference for protecting established property rights against arguments for repeal by implication. This precedent solidifies the power of landowners, including those with undeveloped or 'wild' lands, to control access to their property for recreational activities like hunting and trapping.
