The Weekly comet. [volume] (Baton Rouge, La.) 1853-1855, 1854-04-23
I'm pOrtamt Decision,
Establishing the Mechanics Lein,

I ~
ted TO vexatious. and as he believes,
h malicious suit for the past two years,
in which the interests. and rights Of
every arl,zan and mechanic in the State
we're involved congratua,es bis broth
er mechanics, throughout the State, on
the decision of The Supreme Court
fully establishing the right contehded
for, which ID herewith, submitted for
their perusal.
The entire proceedings with the
circumstances, in which the suit orig
mated will be published in pamphlet
form az soon as the papers aud accom-
paning allidayits can be properly com
piled w. r. TuNNanp.
Baton Rouge, April 2lst ls54.
SUPREME CoHRr or Jttt EfaIE or
LOUISIANA. The Court met Monday,
| March. lJth lsjl=-ptesent their Honors
Thomas slidell. Chief Justice, Cornelius
VOORHEES,. A. M Buchanan A NJ Ogden
and James q Campbell, Associate Justices.
tJo5ll
Cnas. GAYhHnt, arplee, VS. W. Y. TIM
hard, apt Appeal from the 9th Judicial
District Court, East baton Rouge,
In Ibis cause the Court This day deliver
ell their opiuioh in writing In the words
and figures following
The petitioner alleges. that m the 9th
day Of Hepleniber 1889, the defendant. w.
y. lnhnerl, though therein demanded re.
fused TO deliver the possession Of four
wheeled carriage lelrugina 10 him, and that
he detains the same illegally and nialiei-
ousy. lie plays Inr The restitution OF the
carriage. and for $1,000 damages for It's de-
tpnirn The drfpnte il q general denial
and special denial that his conduct TO-
wards petitioner has been malicious NJ H.
legal Alleging that The suit Of plaintiff is
malicious and ui,grunlei IN law and
brought with The intent Of annoying and
larassing hin--Ie claims damages III re-
conventions The case was tried by Jury
aud IN conformity with their verdict
judgement was rendered in plaintiffs favor
--dpeieeing The return Of The carriage and
sentencing defendant to pay twenty FIVE
dollars IS damages and the costs VI suit
From the Judgement thus rendered, this
appeal has hetn prosecuted. Though the
ssues presented by the rlea1ngs are sim
rle and easy Ut solution, this ease has be-
come mitch complicated by the manner IN
which the trial was conducted IN The Court
below. Testimony not strictly admissible
Under the pIenAtn4s has been offered aud
received without objection the effect Of
which has been TO chanae materially the
issues M made up
The facts Of the case as disclosed bv the
record are substantially as follows plain-
tiU on The morning Of The 9th of September
sent bis carriage to The shop Of the defend
ent. who IL m a,li AN, {, be lepared---the
reraiIs were mate, an'l proved to be worth
two dollars. The stun charged leienheni re-
fused to deliver TO plaintiff the carriage
Until he should he paid The SUN, The plain
t'll reused to do SO, but piotered to. and
actually did deposit with Dntlocq, Mayor
and Justice oil the Peace OF Baton Rouge.
the suu demanded subjected 10 the claim oi
defendant Upon bis establishing his right 10
it. The money tlns deposited was never
demanded by defendant and was Withdrawn
o. the lih Of the same month by plaintiff.
Tile defendant maintained That under the
article 3lSl OF The Civil Code, he had u
t'ghi 10 keep possession Of the tarlaee TN.
vi payment ~ the price ot irrAtis. has rS4
copied TO the char 70 Of The judge, who
instructed the Jury that defendant had no
such isht but that IL should have been de-
!ivetti ~ immediately on demand and that
the Jury consequently were bouud TO rem
der u ee,dlct in lavor OF plaintiff for the
carriage aud for such damages as they
t.tt ltI .Jpr T., hal l.,, a..
ton.
We think The Court erred in charging the
Jury that the deJendeut had no right to de-
tain the carriage until payment Tor the re-
pairs was made. The right necessarily IT,
suits Iioln tue 2ad paragraph by article ASA
OF The C'vil Code. which expressly accorJs |
this privilege to The debts OF workman |
or artizan Tor the price Of bis labor on the
moveabe which he has repaired or ,nade |
1t the thing continues still an his possess
sion
Ibis rule the artizans d,oi dc retention
Is derived from the Roman Law lsee Foct
cited Foss Pue 81 lily Vol L. No. 26i, and |
Is analageoas TO the particular hen given in
like cases by the common law. which their
writers deilue to be "rhe right to retain
the property of another for charge on ac-
count OF labor bestowed upon it 2 Kent
Com. ga, which right as has been held by
their Coutts, continues while the possession
"a retained, but is lost by voluntary sur
lender.
ilolyvs. Hnngetlord 8 Pick ~
Moon VS.. Hitchcock, med 300.
10 Jordon vs.. James 5, Ham So. it was
held that the possession of the object on
which the lien il claimed to operate, is the
very essence Of the lien. II was necessary
Tor the plaintiff before demanding the poss-
esslon Of his carriage jbdieialy, either to
have paid the charge for repairs, or in case
he deemed il excessive to have made the