New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1860-04-11
Neh Orleans 9aiIp Grsstelt
WEDNESDAY MORNING, APRIL ii, 1850.
TALK ON CHANGE.

j There was some apathy perceiVable yesterday
on the flags. Carondelet street came in for a
share and there were strong evidences Of decline
| in operations on the well and old beaten flags oil
Poydras, Tchonpitoulas and New Levse streets.
| There was also pause on the levee and landings,
| and after tomorrow the crowds on other great
thoroughfaTes will diminish rapidly.
| There was fair business going on in cotton
| about meridian. The rule OF requiring deposit,
or payment before delivery, seems to be enforced
| by several factors, particularly where and when
| large sales are in course of delivery. There has
been good deal of talking about the five day lien
| law or privilege. We publish the law under our
financial head this morning. The recent troubles
OF large operator will test the value of this law
There are thousands of orders given to send to or
deliver to such captain, such vessel, so many
bales Of cotton marked so and so, numbered as
the case may be, but it is doubtful there is one
order in thousand that any alInsion il made to
the five days privilege or any other lien. The
question arises: suppose one vendor has bought
the cotton, and though only paid in part, gives an
order for the cotton there no vendors privilege
and the cotton is delivered, and some msapplica-
ton or boulversment turns up, what then? lot
of cotton may pass through half dozen different
hands before bills Of lading are signed. 4 half
dozen vendors orders may be passed and every
purchaser may have bill and receipt Of the same
As there has not been any important suits arising
since this law has been in effect it is doubtful how
it may be construed by jury of twelve intelligent
| men. The recent difficulties Of large operator
are but the leading to extensive litigation One
party claims q vendors privilege on the ground
that the check given for the cotton has not been
paid; another party intervenes, with the invoice
or bill Of the cotton receipted, or received paw
ment, and that he has bill of Iading of the same
shipped to Europe, having advanced the full value
on it. and the factor vendor claims and attaches
the same on shipboard. This is knotty question.
but if the ship sinks or burns up with the cotton,
and the cotton Is insured in foreign parts by order
of the party who made the advances and holder of
the bills Of ladng, it is reasonable to suppose that
the vendor, with privilege lien, would not re-
cover many dimes out of the policy of insurance
even if the policy emanated or was issued by an
office in this city. Further talk was to this effect:
| that advances have been made on some Of the cot
ton by foreigners by parties not citizens of the
United States. They avail themselves Of the pryi
eges of our laws, go direct into the United States
| Courts, commence proceedings and override the
jurisdiction of State Courts With bills Of lad
| ing, receipted invoices and policies of insurance
will this obscure five days lien law give any pro
| lection to vendor or factor2 We imagine not
| IF these suits get into the United States Courts u
| decision may be expected about the year 1866
1 Assuming that the cases will be carried TO the
Supreme Court at Washington after our State
| Courts, we may look for final decision in about
| one year, or perhaps not till the November term
Of the Supreme Court in November 1861. Splendid
| prospects for some members of the legal frater-
nifty. In the meantime, it will puzzle at least a
score of Philadelphia lawyers to identify one hun
dred bales of cotton out of thousand after it has
gone through one of our steam cotton presses 1t
/ will be almost impossible for factor to pick out
4 his cotton by the marks which he sold by or from
| the planters Marks or the marks which were rem
dered in the account of sales to the planter. Bales
of sandy or dusty cotton, when sent back from
distant markets. cannot be identified and it is with
the most extreme difficulty that the buyer himself
is convinced that he bought and paid for such and
such bales of cotton. True, the shipping mark
may be proven, and the cotton may be proven if
the bales are brought before the court and jury.
And this talk brings up steamboat case for in
surance, brought many and many years ago by the
owners of the steamboat Alabama against the old
Louisiana State Insurance Company, for damages
| sustained by the boats coming in contact with
snag in the Mississippi river. The defense was that
| the boat was warranted sound, and the Company
attempted to prove that the stem of the boat was
rotten and unsound. The boat was lying over at
| Algers, or as much of her as was left from the
| effects of the snag. The captain coolly went to
work, cut the entire stem out, brought it over the
river, produced it in court before the jury, and
satisfactorily proved that it was perfectly sound
and solid. The jury SO agreed and decided against
the Insurance Company. Therefore, the talk is,
that to identify lot Of cotton after passing through
our cotton presses if claimants dispute and con-
test the Identification, we may expect to courts
and juries examining bales of cotton. In the
meantime, we may learn the efficacy of five days
lien law in regard to cotton The lien law is how
ever, highly valuable and important, when fulfilled
according to the text and intent