ALLEN V. JONES.
11
absolute or rendered against the revellUes of any particular year or years previous to the year 1879; that, for the purpose of retiring and canceling said jUdgment debt, the said board is authorized and required either to sell the bonds to be issued under this act, at not less than their par value, and apply the proceeds thereof to the payment of the said jUdgments, as above specified, or issue said bonds in exchange for said judgments. . Sec. 3. Be it furthf1r enacted, etc., that section five of act No. 133, approved A.pril 10, 1880, be amended and re-enacted so as to read: That it shall be the duty of the city of New Orleans to turn over and transfer to the board of liquidation, immediately after the passage of this act, all property of the city of New Orleans, real and personal, not dedicated to public use: provided, that in the sale of batture property, which is herein included, the right of the city to all future accretions shall be reserved; all assets of said city realized, and to be realized, except such assets and revenues as pertain to the administration of said efty, and necessary for the support of the same as at present authorized; all uncollected revenues of said city anterior to the year 1879, when collected; and the said board is hereby authorized and required to dispose of said property and assets, other than stock held in corporations, on such terms and conditions as said board mav deem to be to the best interests of the city. and apply the proceeds thereof, together with the uncollected revenues above mentioned, when the same are collected-First, to the payment of the interest on the bonds anthorized herein, in the event that the tax: authorized by section eleven of said act No. 133, approved April 10. 1880, be not levied; second, to the redemption and cancellation of the said, bonds: provided, that bids for the sale of the same shall be by sealed proposals, and that preference shall be given to the lowest bidder: and provided further, that no bids above the par value of said bonds shall be accepted.
ALLEN
and others v.
JONES
and others, Intervenors.!
(Oi1'cuit Court, E. D. LouisiarVl. May 14, 1885.)
1.
BILLS OF LADTNG AND WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS.
The acts of Louisiana, No. 150 of 1868 and :No 72 of 1876, mean that the bills of lading and warehouse receipts for property shipped or wa:ehoused shall fully represent the property, so that a transfer of those paper tItles shall vest in the transferee the property as fully as the delivery of the property itself. Article 3227 of the G'ivil Code of Louisiana gives the right to the vendor to seize the things sold in whatsoever hllnds or place they may be found, and to enforce his lien for the price with preference over all other claims, as well those who hold under title acquired through bills of lading as against those whose title is evidenced by actual delivery.
2.
LIEN OF VENDOR OF AGRJCUVfUHAL PRODUCTS.
At Law·. Charles S. Rice, for plaintiffs. Thomas L. Boyne and George Deneg1'e, for intervenors. BILLINGS, J. This cause having been tried without a Jury, the same having been waived, the court finds the following as the facts of the case: The plaintiffs sold to the defendants on the third day of June, 1884, 268 being for bales of cotton, for the sum of $12,665.25, the terms of the lReported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans
1Z
fEDERAL REPORTER.
·cash. On the following day tbe cotton was delivQred to the said defendant, through the warehouseman, where the same was stored. On the sixth of June the said defendants paid upon this purchase the sum of $1,800. which they derived by or from advances made by intervenors on bill of lading for the cotton, leaving unpaid the balance of the price of the cotton, viz., the sum of $10,865.25. The cotton was an agricultural product of the state of Louisiana, and the sale was made to the defendants by the plaintiffs in the city of New Orleans. On the sixth of June all of the cotton was either laden on board or delivered in the possel'lsion of the steam-ship Counsellor, bound for Liverpool. and bills of lading in regular form were on that day issued for said cotton by the master of said steam-ship, and were on the same day transferred by the usual indorsement to the intervenors, Brown Bros. & Co., who paid for the same the sum of £2,680, in the currency of the United States $13,400, the full value of the cotton. On June 7th the plaintiffs instituted this suit, claiming a vendor's lien for the unpaid balance of the prIce of the cotton. and on the same day sequestered the cotton and took it out of the possession of the master onhe said steam-ship Counsellor, who held the same for shipment, having given the said bills of lading therefor.
As the conclusions of law, drawn from these facts, the court finds: (1) That the acts of 1868, No. 150, and of 1876, No. 72, mean that the bills of lading and warehouse receipts for property shipped or warehoused shall fully represent the property, so that a transfer of those paper titles shall vest in the transferee the property as fully as a sale accompanied by a delivery of the property itself. (2) That the acts of 1854 and 1855, now found in Civil Code, art. 3227. since they give the right to the vendor to seize the thing sold in whatsoevel' hands or place they may be found, and enforce his lien for the price. which the statute declares shall have preference over all other claims, operates as well against those who hold under purchase through bills of lading as well as by transfer and actual delivery. (3) That the plaintiffs' claim must prevail over that of the intervenors'.
Therefore the plaintiffs must have judgment enforcing their rights upon the cotton to the extent of the unpaid price. To that extent the intervenors"claim is dismissed; beyond that, allowed. Plaintiffs must have judgment against the defendant for all costs prior to the intervention, and all costs subsequent to the intervention must be paid out of the cotton (Extraetfrom AetNo. 150 of the Legislature of Louisiana of 11368, Refen'ed to Above.) Sec. 6. Be It turther enacted, etc., that cotton-press receipt given for any goods, wares, merchandise, grain, flour, or other produce or commodity stored or deposited with any cotton-press, wharfinger. or other person, or any bill of lading given by any forwarder, boat, vessel, railroad. transportation or transfer company, may be transferred by indorsement therein, and any. person to whom the same may be transferred shall be deemed and taken to be the owner of the goods, wares, merchandise, grain, flour, or other produce, or commod· ity therein specified, so far as to give validity to any pledge. lien, or transfer made or created by such person or persons; but no property shall be delivered, except on surrender and cancellation of said original receipt, or bill of lading. of the indorsement of such delivery thereon. In case of partial delivery, all cotton-press receipts, or bills of lading, however, which shall have the words "not negotiable" plainly written or stamped on the face thereof shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.
13
(Extracts from Act No. 72 of the Legislature of Louisiana of 1876, Referred to Above.) Sec. 4. Be it further enacted, etc., that parties who may borrow money on the faith of warehouse receipt, representing property in store, shall file their affidavit with the pledgees that such property is theirs, the pledgeors' personal property, or that it is the property of some party for whom the pledgeor is acting as agent, factor, commission merchant, or in any other fiduciary capacity; and that said party is justly and truly indebted to the pledgeor in an amount equal in value to the value of the property pledged, as specified in the warehouse receipt, for moneys paid to him or paid by his order and for his account by the party or consignee making the pledge. The cashier of a bank, or the secretary of any insurance company incorporated or working under any law in the United States or of this state, is hereby authorized to administer the oath contemplated under the provisions of this act. Any deviation therefrom shall render the party or parties so deviating liable for the value of the property,or any excess in value over and above the amount for which it may have been pledged in any manner specified in section one of this act, and to prosecute for perjury, and also for obtaining money under false pretenses. Sec. 5. Be it further enacted, etc., that the vendors' lien of five days privilege, now allowed in commercial transactions for the payment of the purchase price, shall not be affected by the provisions of this act, except in case in which a.warehouse receipt has been pledged as collateral for money borrowed. The holder of the warehouse receipt shall be considered and held as the actual owner of the property described in the receipt, and no clause of this act shall operate to the detriment or injury of the holder of a warehouse receipt, to the extent of the value of the property specified, made and issued in accordance with and under the provisions of this act: provided, that where the factor" agent, or pledgeor may have wrongfully pledged, in violation of this Rct, any property, the lien of the owner shall be valid even against the third holder of the warehouse receipt. Sec. 8. Be it further enacted, etc., that all warehouse receipts, as by this act provided, shall be negotiable by indorsement in blank. or by special indorsement in the same. manner and to the same extent as bills of exchange and promissory notes now are. (Extract from the Civil Code of Louisiana, Referred to Above.) Art. 3227. He who has sold to another any movable property which is .not paid for has a preference on the price of Ilis property over the other creditors of the purchaser, whether the sale was made on a credit or without, if the property still remains in the possession of the purchaser. So that, although the vendor may have taken a note, bond, or other acknowledgment from the buyer, he still enjoys the privilege. Any person who may sell the agricultural products of the United States in the city of New Orleans shall be entitled to a special lien and privilege thereon to secure the payment of the purchase money for and during the space of five days only after the day of deli very, within which time the vendor shall be entitled to seize the same in whatsoever hands or place they may be found; and his claim for the purchase money shall have preference over all others. If the vendor gives a written order for the delivery of any such products, and shall say therein that they are to be delivered without vendor's priVilege, then no lien shall attach thereto.
FJDERAL .REPORTER.
WEILL V; THOMPSON and others, Intervenors.1 (Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Loui8iana. January 20, 1885.) IMXOVABI,ES BY Ur:STINATION-MoRTGAGE.
Machinery attached to a plantation, and used for plantation purposes, though included in a mortgage, if purchased and removed, even during the pendency of a suit to enforce the mortgage, were withdrawn from the operation of the mortgage. When machinery is removed from a plantation, it again becomes a movable, and as such could not be susceptible of mortgage, even if the purchaser was in bad faith; that is, purchased with knowledge of the mortgage. Odizens' Bank v. Knapp, 22 La. Ann. 117.
, At Law. Un trIal ot mterventions. C. B. Singleton, R. H. Browne, and B. F. Choate, for plaintiff. Joseph P. Hornor and Francis W. Ba.ker, for intervenors. BILLINGS, J. The question submitted is upon the intervention. Defendant executed a mortgage to plaintiff of a plantation. At the time of the execution of the mortgage, the mules and machinery in question were upon the plantation, and in use in connection with it for the purpose of working it. Subsequently, and with knowledge of the mortgagee, the intervenors purchased these articles; they were severed from the plantation, and were in the possession of intervenors when the proceedings to foreclose the mortgage were instituted. That machinery so situated were by destination immovables, is determined by Civil Code La. art. 468. The case of Citizens' Bank v. Knapp, 22 La. Ann. 117, holds that machinery attached to a plantation and used for plantation purposes, though included in a mortgage, if purchased and removed, even during the pendency of a suit to enforce the mortgage, were withdrawn from the operation of the mortgage. The ground upon which the conclusion of the court is placed, is that, when detached from the sugar-house and removed from the plantation, the machinery became again amovable, and as such could not be susceptible of mortgage; that this would be true even if the purchaser was in bad faith; that is, purchased with knowledge of the mortgage. A strong argument, both at the trial and subsequently by brief, was made in favor of the destination which the law had given to the mules and machinery, continuing so long as the persons dealing with the property knew of the mortgage. But in cases not involving 3,ny provision of the constitution of the United and not springing out of negotiable paper; (which last are ranked among causes governedby the general law-merchant and not by the local law,) the can· struction given by the court of last resort ofa state, and not qualified by any subsequent decision, as to the meaning of a statute, is a part. of the statute, and is binding upon the federal courts. lR(;portcd by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.
