The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-04-27
Supreme Court of Louisiana.


supreme court OF LOUISIANA
Condensed Deeisions-NEw ORLEANS. April q. 1919
Where consignee makes disbursements for vessel and
draws bill of exchange therefor on the owner the trans
fer osuch bill invests the holder with any accessory rights
which accompanied it in the hands of the payees. who
made the advances in consideration of which it was
drawn but the will be considered having been
advanced solely the personal credit of the and
tac hypotheeation of the vessel will be recognized
after her sale and delivery to third persons
NATHAN HARMED Us. SAMUEL CHuR Gilman.
Appeal from The Fourth District Court Of Neao Or
leans. .SLIDELL, ]. This suit was brought by
Harmed as the endorsee of bill of exchange for
$l2l0 90 payable at thirty days after date, drawn
at Philadelphia on the 18th Feb, 1S49, by james
Robertson, master of the bark Due dOrleans, in
favor of Head, Bucknef& Co. for their disburse-
rne's rpunt Of thc sessa! i'm tie paetef Piils
acei phia. II was drawn on ClGrchu,afi, Of New
Orleans, the former owner OF The bark, and was
accepted by him. The bill was protested at ma
turty, and on the Oath of March, 184s this action
was brought against the acceptor; and Woodruff,
the present owner of the bark upon which lien
is claimed, was made defendant. The bark was
sequestered. The plaintiff had Judgment in the
Court below against CGurchman, with privilege on
the bark. Woodruff has appealed
The bark left New Orleans, her home port
about the first Of January, 1913, consigned by
Churchman to Head, Buckner Go. In letter
Of the Sd January he remarks to them: g / am ar
ranging bill of sale for the Due d'Oheans and
will forward that also'' The bark arrived at
Philadelphia on the 4th February, 1913, and left
that port for New Orleans the 18th. Part of her
cargo was lor tne owners account, SO that ner
lsl 10 Ihiladeiphia pfounced only S44o %
Whlch was collected by Head, Buckner ~ 20,
and carried by them to Churchman'S credit in ac-
count. They had previous dealings; and the an
tecedent charges against Churchman seem to have
been more than sufficient to absorb the freight
money. The Vessel while at Philadelphia incurred
various expenses for services and supplies for car
pehters, sall-makers and chambers, Tor toWage,
pliotages customhouse charges, ETC.; for the pay
ment OF these and also In the form OF cash advances
10 The captain, (for what purpose or upon what
representation, does not appear Head, sBucknef
G 20. disbursed sum which amounted, with the
customary commissions and interest, TO $i2l6 ~
and for this amount the Captains bill on Church
man was taken. Churchman sold the bark on the
18th January, 1913, to Decourley and others. The
purchasers got out new register on the 18th
March, 1913. They resold the bark al auction on
the I'D March, 1915, to the appellant Woodruff
1t was conceded by the Supreme Court that for
the purposes of the present inquiry, by the transfer
of the bill of exchange the holder may be consid
cred as equtably invested with any accessory rights
which accompanied ii in the hands of the payees,
who made the advances in consideration of which
It was drawn. 1t was held, that looking to all the
advanced SOLELY
of the owner; and that in very extended exami-
nation Of The authorities upon the maritime law
the Court was unable to meet with any case where,
under like circumstances a tacit hypothecation of
the vessel in favor of the consgnee has been recog
nized. The authorities cited were 3 Kents Com.
Peters, Adv. a0s. Jacobsen,s Laws of The Sea Sea- n
359 case of the Alexander r. Dodsop. 279: Holt
ON SEjpaisp. x,d. I n. 800: The Aurera. Wheaton.
fOi SMITH Mercantile Law. go AS'<
In looking into The English and American author-
tiles the Court said it found that the taking of
bill of exchange upon the owner is considered
creating presumption that the credit is personal
So, where sailor, having been offered his wages
EXCHANGE ON The oyrnsr ,bo q r,arw,rds boo.na .
banlru5t in consennanco of which The hill ,y.s
J;shonnroJ !, Yyas bIJ ,b.t ba NOS not an,;tIad
10 .rrast TIC sh; CO.. , IL. ,n,o,,n, of s,,nh
hill nm the oronnd that HAVING made his alaction
he must stand bv The risk The William Mooney
? Happard I36 See also Paine 572. brig Nestor'
Q Sumner 81 The case of the bark C6ersop. 2
Storey 46 was held not TO he conclusive on the pres
ent one as there tbe libelIant was material man.
II was therefore decreed that the Judgment below
as to Woodruffbe reyersed-that there be Judgment
in his favor and that the claim of privilege unon
the baroue Zinc d,OrIaans he rejected the costs Of
the Representation. Of the nroceedncs AGAINST Wood
ruff and of this appeal be- maid bv The plaintiff.
f. uiLLET 0 10 Us. MRS. ELIZABETH NAGEL
DERANCo AND HUsBAND-On rehearing. :. APP
peal from The Fourth District Court of Ne,o Or
leans. The judgment of the lower court was re-
f,rber nrooeod;nos aonorJ;n ~ I,,u tho ,nnalIoos
20 nov ,ba 900 &c ,ha ann.a1
W ply wv O VI VIZ "fpo"
MARIA A. TuRNER WIFE OF w r. "TuRNrp
u.s. Mrs. MARY DOYLE AND WIDOW D. DOYLE, EFT
AL. appeal from the Third District Court of
Ne,p Orleans . .SLIDELL, J. Judgment affirm.
ed, with costs
VIM. MOVES Us. CHAs. Fl. PrERPoYT, AND CBAs,
III. PIERPoNT ps. WIN. MOVES. ApDeal from, The
Frs District Court of Man Orleans SIInrtI
]. Judgment affirmed. with costs '-''''''
1t is not to the defendant copies of the
acts documents annexed to the petition, and the fact
that the petition mentions that they form part OF it, does
not vary this rue OF practice.
JOHN L. OSBORN u.s. WIN. A. CHAMBERS, OWNER
OF STEAMBOAT CANT. Appeal from the Fifth
District Court Of New Orleans. .RosT, j..
Action on an open account for work done and ma
terlals furnished by plaintiff to defendant, judg
ment by default was taken, and afterwards made
final. Defendant then appeared by counsel and
moved for new trial. on the ground that the ac-
count annexed to the petition was alleged to be made