## Facts

- Manuel Oscar Buras owned a large tract of marsh land in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, intersected by bayous and lagoons and subject to tidal overflow.
- The property was inland from the Gulf and its bays, though water levels rose and fell with the tide.
- Buras posted no-trespassing notices, employed a patrol, and gave defendants written and personal demands to stop entering the land.
- Anthony Salinovich and others repeatedly entered the marsh to hunt and trap (primarily muskrats) despite these warnings.
- Defendants asserted that the tract was “seashore” and therefore public property; alternatively, they claimed a right to continue by long usage or by relying on navigation of the waterways.
- The trial court denied Buras a permanent injunction and awarded defendants damages for lost trapping income and attorney’s fees.
- Buras appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether tidal marsh land located inland from the Gulf qualified as “seashore” (a public thing) under Louisiana Civil Code art. 451.
2. Whether defendants acquired any right, by prescription or long use, to enter private marsh land to hunt and trap.
3. Whether a landowner is entitled to a permanent injunction to stop repeated hunting/trapping trespasses on privately owned marsh land.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court annulled the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held the marsh land was not “seashore” under Civil Code art. 451 and remained private property.
- The court held defendants had no prescriptive or other legal right to hunt, trap, or otherwise enter the land.
- The court rendered judgment granting a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from hunting, trapping, or otherwise trespassing on Buras’s land.
- The court rejected defendants’ claims for damages and attorney’s fees and assessed costs against defendants.

## Legal Principles

- “Seashore” under Louisiana Civil Code art. 451 is limited to the land over which the sea spreads at the highest winter tide; tidal influence alone does not convert inland marsh into seashore/public domain.
- Long-continued unauthorized hunting/trapping on another’s land does not create a prescriptive right or servitude to continue trespassing absent a lawful basis (e.g., title, grant, or established servitude).
- Public rights associated with navigable waters do not include a privilege to enter and use adjacent privately owned marsh lands for hunting or trapping.
- A permanent injunction is proper to restrain repeated, continuing trespasses after notice to desist, particularly where the trespass interferes with the owner’s use and enjoyment and is not readily redressed by damages.

## Conclusion

The court treated the dispute as one of private ownership and continuing trespass: the tract was not public seashore despite tidal overflow, defendants’ repeated hunting and trapping created no prescriptive entitlement, and injunctive relief was warranted to stop ongoing violations of the owner’s exclusive right to control access to the marsh.


Buras v. Salinovich, 154 La. 495, 97 So. 748 (La. 1923)