## Facts

- Adelaide Landry owned an approximately 8½-acre tract of farmland in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana.
- Landry leased the tract to Adley LeBlanc to farm it under a verbal farm lease that began in 1976 and was verbally renewed for later years, including 1978.
- A few years into the lease relationship, LeBlanc arranged with a third party (a shell yard/excavation business) to remove a large quantity of topsoil (described as a “headland” area) from a portion of the leased property.
- Landry asserted that LeBlanc had no permission to remove and haul away the soil and that the removal damaged the land (including conditions affecting drainage/erosion and the cost to restore the tract).
- Landry notified LeBlanc that the lease would not be renewed and demanded that he restore the affected area to its prior condition by replacing the removed soil.
- LeBlanc refused to restore the property.
- Landry sued LeBlanc for damages based on the unauthorized removal of the soil.
- LeBlanc asserted an affirmative defense of mandate (agency), claiming Landry’s brother, Lucien Landry, verbally authorized the soil removal while acting as Landry’s agent.
- Over Landry’s objection, the trial court admitted parol (testimonial) evidence offered to prove Lucien Landry’s alleged authority and permission.
- The trial court concluded Landry failed to carry her burden of proof and dismissed her demands; Landry appealed, challenging (among other things) the admission of parol evidence to prove agency authority over an immovable.

## Issues

1. Whether the right to remove topsoil from leased land involves an immovable interest such that an agent’s authority to authorize that removal must be express and in writing under Louisiana law.
2. Whether parol evidence is admissible to prove an alleged mandatary’s authority to authorize removal and transfer of topsoil from the land.
3. Whether the lessee established the affirmative defense of mandate and avoided liability for removing the soil.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment dismissing Landry’s claims.
- The court treated the topsoil as part of the immovable (land) and held that loading soil onto trucks for removal did not change its character for purposes of the required formalities.
- Because the authorization claimed by LeBlanc concerned an interest in an immovable, the alleged agent’s authority had to be in writing; testimonial proof of that authority was not sufficient.
- LeBlanc, who bore the burden of proving his affirmative defense of mandate, failed to prove a valid authorization to remove the topsoil.
- The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with the ruling, including determination of the proper relief/damages for the unauthorized removal.

## Legal Principles

- Land and its component parts, including soil, are immovables under Louisiana Civil Code principles; ownership of land includes what is above and below it.
- A right to remove the soil itself from land is treated as an interest in an immovable; the soil does not become a movable merely because it is excavated and placed in trucks for hauling.
- When a transaction involves transferring or disposing of an interest in an immovable, Louisiana law requires written form; related agency authority to perform such acts must also be express and in writing (La. Civ. Code art. 2997, as applicable at the time).
- Parol evidence generally cannot be used to prove an agent’s authority to transfer or dispose of immovable property when the law requires written authority (subject to limited statutory exceptions).
- A party asserting mandate as an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving the mandatary’s authority; if written authority is required, the defense fails without it.

## Conclusion

Landry v. LeBlanc held that removing and hauling away topsoil from leased farmland involves an immovable interest, so an alleged agent’s authority to permit that removal must be in writing; because the lessee relied on claimed verbal permission supported only by parol testimony, the mandate defense failed and the dismissal was reversed for further proceedings on Landry’s recovery.


Landry v. LeBlanc, 416 So. 2d 247 (1982)