The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1857-08-12
INTERESTING TO FAcToRs.--A very import

INTERESTING TO fACToRS.-A very import
ant question was decided by the supreme court
during the last session-that is, important to
all those who furnish plantation supplies dl-
rect as well as factors and others who at times
have claims considered as coming under the
term privilege claims The decision before US
is the case Of McCutchon, Howell d Go. VS.. j..
B. Wilkinson and NJ. =. Payne, intervenor.
1t appears the plaintiffs, MeCutchon, Howell
d Co., furnished the defendant supplies for
his plantation from September /, 1854 to
January %, 1855, On the It'll January, 1856,
the plaintiffs. seqpestered nine hogsheads OF
sugar, then on the plantation, being part OF the
crop of 1856 on which they claimed to have
privilege. MosessU. Payne interviewed, claim
ing the sugar. having bought the plantation IN
July, 1855, at a judicial sale. 1t has always
been considered that merchants and factors
have privilege On the products Of planta-
ton when they have furnished the means of
raising the same, but the decision in this case
was against the plaintiff, and the nine hogs
heads Of sugar seauestered TO pay their claim,
say 1851, was ordered to be restored to the
intervenor, and their claim, we suppose, was
lost. According TO this decision, it is rather a
hazardous business to furnish planters supplies,
payable out Of the proceeds of the crop, for it
must be understood that merchants, for the
convenience of planters, generally sell them
supplies on six or twelve months credit These
transactions commonly take place in the sum-
mer, the merchan: expecting to be paid out of
the proceeds of tie succeeding crop. Under
this decision, when a planter comes to pur-
chase ploughs, in the winter, to prepare his
land, previous to the planting of his crop, he
will have to pay cash or get a city acceptance
in order to secure the merchant, who will have
no privilege on tie coming crop The mer
chant will have to do this in self-defence, no
matter how much confidence he may have in
the planter, otherwise other debts may take
precedence, or the plantation be sold to a third
party, when the merchants claim will be to-
tally lost. u#s NJ .4 .4-.s s... =
The result of this DECISIONS, therefore, this,
that no supplies can be furnished except at the
unprotected risk of the merchant, as there will
be no privilege ON the next crop.
\ 1t will be understood that the sugar made
from the furnishing of these supplies was in the
sugar house, on tie plantation, at the time of
isequestratlon. ..
The decision of the court, however, was not
unanimous, associate justices Spoford and
VOORHEES, dissenting in the following opinion:
think the article 1884 of the Civil Code, as
amended by the act Of March, 1843, (p. "a,
gives the furnisher of necessary supplies to
farm or plantations, a privilege upon the two
consecutive crops, where the account as in
this case) extends over a portion of two years.
The account is conceded to be for plantation
supplies" it runs from September 1st, 1854,
to January 95th, 1856 The sugar seized is |
of the crop of 1855; this crop grew mainly
from rattoons, which in the ground on the
25th January, 1855 1t is conceded and pro-
perly settled, by authority, that if there was a
privilege on the growing crop in favor of the
plaintiffs at the date of the sale from Wlkin-
son to the intervenor Payne, then the sale did
not GUST the privilege. The sole question,
therefore is was there in July, 1855, privi
lege on Wilkinson's then growing crop, for the
account sued upon?
l think it was the intention of the lawgiver.
that the plaintiffs, as furnishers of plantation
supplies to Wilkinson, from the latter part of
1854, and the early part of 1856, should have
a privilege for the whole account both upon
TIE crop of 1854 and the crop of 1855, and
thai the Indictment shorld he affirmed