Case ID: la_2/html/0439-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mathews, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PHELPS AND BABCOCK vs. C. AND A. HARING. REYNOLDS ET AL. INTERVENING.
    
    APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST DISTRICT.
    A consignee has a privilege for advances made upon goods consigned to-him.
    The plaintiffs attached certain merchandise as the property of the defendants, in the hands of Reynolds, Byrne & Co. who intervened and set up a lien 6n the goods seized, as factors of the defendants. It appeared that the goods were purchased by the defendants, on the faith of a letter of credit given to them by the intervening parties, and it was admitted that the latter had paid for the goods. They were consigned by the defendants to Reynolds, Byrne & Co., to be forwarded to the state of Mississippi. The court below gave judgment against the intervening parties, from which they appealed.. - ''
    A consignee has a privilege for advances made upon goods consigned to him.
    Eastern District,
    
      June 1831.
    
      Pierce, for'appellant,
    relied on the "3214th article of the Civil Code.
    
      M’Caleb contra.
   Mathews, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This, suit was commenced by áttachment, and property or merchandise, levied on in the possession „of Reynolds, Byrne & Co. as belonging to’thp defendants in the attachment. _ Afterwards the garnishees intervened, and claimed a lieipor- privilege, on the. goods seized, under the article 3124 of:the.-"Louisiana Code." The court bfelow decided against their pretensions, Epkl they 'appealed.

In the statement Of facts, made -by the parties to this suit, it is agreed, amongst other things,' that the gocids attached in thfe possession of-the- appellants were purchased.by the defendants in attachment, on* the faith of letters of prédit- given by the garnishees, and were consigned to the latter by the pul-chasers, and that the price of them* was paid by'the consignees.- ' U, ■

■ " It* appears to júsíhát’í hé admission of these facts, brings the” appellants clearly within the proyisións-of the article of the Code by them relied on.;'.-The lien" or privilege is granted by the. first clause in.the article.. .It • commences’ in hec verba: — “Every,'consignor or commission agent ; who has made advances.oil goods consigned to him, or placed, in his hands to be sold for acéount qf the consignor, has a privilege for the amount of these advances, áte..” The, facts admitted that thegpods in .dispute were jiaid for by Reynolds, Byrne & Co.,'consigned to them by the* purchaser, and in their possession atthe time” of levying"the attachment: it is inconceivable how they can be” deprived óf the lien and privilege accorded to consignees who have made advances on property consigned. There can certainly be no advance which ought to be more privileged than that which is made in payment of the price of goods. It is not only on-them, but for them; and without which they would probably "never have become the property of the consignor, and ought, on every principle of justice and .equity, to be held as a pledge to re-imhurse the persons who have advanced'the price. ;

From the evidence it appears that-tq the value of $350 of the 'attached property" the interveners. had not. made any advance; on this, therefore, they have'no lien. ' V

It is therefore ordered, adjudged*,- and' decreed, that the Judgment of the District Court be avoided, Reversed and annulled. And-it.is further,ordered, Jidjiwjged¡ jnd; decreed, that judgment be here entered* in favor -of the a$jiqllants, with costs in both courts,'exdept as JoTthl.sum ©f.three hundred „ and fifty dollars.' ’• ; , 1