In this action under L.R.S. 48:441, the State petitioned to expropriate a right of access line for 1-220 along the southerly 183.46 feet of defendants’ property. Defendants moved to dismiss the action on the grounds which include the contention that the property was not expropriated for a public use. L.R.S. 48:447.1
The highway had been essentially completed and has been used by the public for some time before defendants’ motion was heard. Defendants presented evidence and argument on the grounds alleged in the motion to dismiss but did not present evidence or argument that the taking was not for a public purpose. The State introduced its petition and affidavits establishing a prima facie case that the right of access was for a public use.
The essential thrust of defendants’ complaints is not toward the alleged public purpose issue but toward the manner in which the expropriation power was exercised. Under these circumstances, we must find that defendants’ “motion” is in reality an exception based on several peremptory grounds.
Under these circumstances, a judgment overruling one or more peremptory exceptions is not an appealable judgment. C.C.P. 2083. Mauterer v. Tillery, 328 So.2d 755 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976).
Exproprio motu, the appeal is dismissed and these proceedings are remanded at appellants’ cost.