Case ID: mart-ns_8/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Martin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NERAULT'S HEIRS & WIFE vs. L’ENCLOS.
    
    Appeal from the court of the fifth district, the judge of the district presiding.
    This suit was brought to recover the price of a slave, evicted, with interest from the date of eviction and costs. On 30th June, 1813, A. L’Enclos sold to J. B. Nerault, ancestor of the plaintiffs, a slave named Victoire, for $500. Afterwards, the wife of L’Enclos, the vendor, obtained judgment against her band for her dotal property. The husband was insolvent, and she resorted to her tacit mortgage, and seized the slave Victoire, in the hands of the vendee, and on the 16th of January, 1816, sold her for $455. In May, 1829, the heirs of Nerault sued the tutor to the only heir of L’Enclos, and had judgment for price, interest and costs, of the slave.
    The claim of the buyer against the vendor in warranty, in case of eviction, under the old c. code is defined at page 354, art. 54, which determines the manner and amount of restitution.
    Interest does not run, in case of eviction, until the warrantor is put in mora, by demanding the sum, which is the price of the thing evicted.
    When the demand of the sum which is the price of the thing evicted, is made, interest is due only, as in case of an ordinary debt; and interest runs from the time of the demand.
   Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant, the appellant, complains of the judgment of the district court, because interest was allowed before the inception of the suit.

He was sued as warrantor of a slave, sold to the plaintiffs, who were evicted, and the judgment is for the consideration of the sale, with interest from the period of the eviction.

The claim of the buyer against the vender in warranty is defined by the old code, (under which the sale of the slave took place,) 354, art. 54. It extends first, to the restitution of the price; 2dly, the fruits received by the buyer; 3dly, costs; and 4thly, damages, when they are suffered, besides the restitution of the price.

The appellee has, we think, incorrectly assumed that the warrantor owes interest, in the same manner as the buyer, who withholds the price of a thing which produces fruits. The buyer knows he owes the fruits. The warrantor must be put in mora: he has no means of knowing the eviction, till the buyer apprises him of it by a demand; and that demand is of a sum of money, on which interest is due only, as in the case of an ordinary debt. In the present case, it does not appear, that any notice of the eviction was given to the appellant, till about thirteen years after it happened.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court he annulled, avoided and reversed, and that the appellee recover of the appellant the sum of 500 dollars, with interest at five per cent. from the inception of this suit until paid, with costs of suit in the district court, and that he pay the costs in this.

Bowen for the plaintiffs, Curry for the defendant.