Washington telegraph., 1856-04-02
From tie Memphis Wig !!
Important Decision Of the Supreme Cour..
OF Louisiana.

BRANDER, WIExIANs d Co. u.s. Isaac
LUM--Lea, J.-Thls was a suit tor a bal
ance due by a planter upon factors ac-
count for advances, commissions, supplies
furnished. &c The defendant in addition
to the general denial. pleaded the ille.a!ity
Of certain items in the account, alleging tha;
the same was made up of usurious charges
of Interest, commissions, and compound in
terest, and of incOrrec. charges for drayage,
storage, labor. weighing, and fire and river
insurance, per casrtnn, As respects the
interest account the plaintiffs are placed in
this dilemma: If the defendant has prom
lsed to pay the interest at per cent, to-
gether with the commissions of . IL per
cent for advancing as set forth in the ac-
count, the contract is clearly usurious. and
the plaintiffs can recover nothing but the
principal sum advanced If, however.
there was no agreement with reference TO
the payment of interest, and the plaintiffs
have merely claimed more than the law al
lows. they can only recover the legal inter
est to which they would be entitled upon
advances made by them as factors. TO wit
. per cent Upcn careful consideration
not at any time acquiesce Internationally
IN the account as it is sued upon. and that,
as there was no contract for usurlOus inter
est, the Plaintiffs are required 10 recover lc-
gal interest upon their advances. from the
respective dates at whic. they were made.
With reference to the charges for dray
age, storage, labor. weighing. aud insurance,
the plaintiffs were Intercepted under oath
whether they had paid these charges as de-
tailed, and to whom. The answers to these
charges are unsatisfactory, at least so far as
they relate to drayage. labor. storage. weigh
ing, &c, for which u charge of 45 cents per
bale Is made in each of the accounts Of sales
rendered The plaintiffs do not say une-
quivocally that they paid this amount II
they did not pay it. they have TO right to
claim it from the defendant. Ii they did.
they should have said 50 in terms not open
to mi>constructiOn. They say that they
have contract by the year with the cotton
press, for the storage of all cotton forward
ed 10 them, which includes labor and dray-
age. There was nothing in their answer
from which it would necessarily be inferred
that the plaintiffs were subjected to an ont
lay of IS cents per bale for expenses in the
drayase, storage. weighing. &e., Of defend
ant 5 cotton. Nor is the Cour. informed by
what process of calculation the plaintiffs con-
siIered themselves entitled to charge the
defendant with the precise sum of - cents
per bale for drayage. storage. labor, &e--
The defendant had light to know bow this
sum was paid. and TO whom- He was entI
tied to the benefit Of any contract which bis
mandatory slay have made in his behalf,
and he was at least entitled to such an ex-
Planation of the terms of this contract as
might satisfy him that the factor realized no
profit by the arrangement at bis expense
AS respects the items for FIRE and river
insurance, the answers of plaintiffs are not
such as to enable the court to ascertain Or
determine precisely. the rights of the defend
ant The defendant is not Informed IN re-
ply TO his interrogatories in reference there
TO-. IN what Office his cotton was insured,
nor what amount Of dividend, if any, in
scrip or money, would lave been due to him,
under a fair apportionment OF the gross
sum received by the plaintiffs, under the
open policies which they say they are in
the habit Of tax ing out to cover the ship
ments of all cotton made to them.
As the defendant is charged with the pre-
miums, it is but fair that he should be cred
tied with at least the value of such amount
of scrip. as under fair apportioument. he
would have been entitled TO receive
The charges for drayage, labor, storage,
weighing and insurance. and the commits
sion for advancing. must. therefore, be re-
iected and the interest reduced from to
per cent.
4 oor-ovnondent IF the Richmond