The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-03-23
ceptiou 70 plants right % prosecute this suit is

moi we'll taken.
We have carefully considered the evidence ed:
duced by the plaintiff to prove the interruption Of
established. The books of the defendants, IN
which the credits on the note Of $50 900 were re-
qulariy entered for q series of years, the extern
sion Of the payment. and the credits Endorsed on
the note s me cSo sS s on hs
Bank. on 18th April. 1854, the production OF
the check itself corresponding with the
books of defendants, all corroborate the
evidence of the plaintiff, and clearly es'
tablish the interruption Of prescription.
The interruption Of prescription "a fully estsb-
lished without the testimony of Bsrjoc. The de-
PENDANTS raise in their brief other points which we
deem 1t unnecessary TO answer. they are not
such as TO require serious consioerauon. we VIII,
however. observe, in reply to the objection that
the Judgment appealed from does not conform to
the S0th article Of the constitution which requires
judges to adduce the reasons on which their
Judgment is founded, that We tnd the following
declaration in the Judgment: "After hearing the
evidence and argument of counsel and consider.
ing the law and the testimony adddced and the
reasons orally assigned, IL is ordered, etc. we
deem this sufficient compliance with the con-
sti,utional provision. IL A., 40.
1t is therefore ordered that the judgment ap-
pealed from be affirmed with costs.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE TALIAFERRo.
No. ll64-J. Mcwilliams vs.. Bryan & Irvine.
Appeal from the Fifth District Court Of New Or
leans. Bright & Barrow for plaintiff and appel
liant. Bonner Il Goode for defendants and appellee.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants as
commercial partners are indebted TO him in the
sum Of eigbty-six thousand, five hundred and
forty.seven dollars and thirty-fve cents with per
cent. interest thereon from the 23d Of October,
1865. He predicates this Indebtedness upon an
alleged contract entered into on the 10th of Feb
rusry, 1864, by which the defendants sold to him
500 bales Of cotton, every bale to weigh 400
pounds, for which he was 10 pay Is cents per u.
He AYERS that he did pay in cash at the time
20 cents per lb.. making the sum Of s69.520; that
defendants delivered the amour of S32,572 65
worth of cotton (expenses deducted). That 496
bales have not been delivered, and from the fail
ure Of the defendants TO deliver them, plaintiff has
been damaged Is cents per ID. on the cotton
which hey have SO failed TO deliver. this being
the difference between the price stipulated to be
given and that which it would have brought on
the 23d of October. 1865. f
The defendant Irvine was alone cited. He an.
swered by specially denying that partnership
existed between himself and Bryan. as alleged by
plaintiff, and by charging that at the time of enter
ing into this alleged contract 10th February, 1884,
the contracting parties resided in opposite sides of
the lines between the territory at the time occu-
pied by the Federal and issurrec tonary forces du-
ring the late war; that the trade carried on by
them was forbidden by law and consequently that
no engagements that may have been entered into
at the time and under the circumstances relating
TO the transactions now, by this suit brought into
view, can nave any regal OF Dluulng eject.
There was judgment in the court below dismis
sing the action of the plaintiff and he prosecutes
this appeal. rs
An attentive perusal of the voluminous record
presented In this case satisfies us that the qnes-
ton of partnership so deliberately discussed by
counsel will not require at our hands any special
scrutiny. Neither will the bills OF exception taken
10 regard to the admission of evidence, of which
we find two in the record, need TO be examined
for the purpose OF deciding upon them. We there
shall confne ourselves to the issue involving the
legality of the transactions lying at the foundation
of the controversy between the parties.
At the date of these transactions war existed in
the country. Portions of the State were in the
military occupancy of the national forces, and
portions held in the same manner by the insur.
rectonary power. This was during the veal. 1874,
In the early part of which the cotton arrange
ments between these litigants took place. Under
the act of Congress of 18th July, 1861, all COM
mercisl intercourse between the inhabitants of a
territorVin insurrection and those of territory
not in resurrection, except under the license of
the president and according TO regulations pre-
scribed by the secretary of the treasury, was en-
trey prohibited. bee statutes at large, vol. IL, p.
257. On the 18th of September, 1868, the secre-
tary of the treasury promulgated series OF trade
regulations, authorized by the act of Congress we
have referred TO, and among these regulations 1t is
provided that commercial intercourse with local.
tiles beyond the lines of military occupation by
the United States forces s strictly prohibited and
no permit will be granted for the transportation
OF any property to any place under the control of
insurgents against the United States" In pur-
susnce of the act of Congress of 18th of july
1861, authorizing it the president of the United
States on the 18th of August of that year. issued
proclamation declaring certain States, among
which was the State of Louisiana, TO be in state
of instruction. Several localities were excepted
irom its operation. Among them were such parts
OF the STATES mentioned las may be from time TO
time occupied and controlled by forces of the
United States engaged in the dispersion of the in
surgenis." See statutes at large, vol. IL, D. 1892
appendix.
In Whist locality at the time of these cotton con.
tracts old the parties to them reside? The petition
in its ONSET AYERS that I" the commercial firm of
Bryan Irvine sold to plaintiff on the 10th day Of
February, 1864. by written contract, $50 bales of
cotton" etc. Pitcher, one of the witnesses,
says: Williams resided at Plaquemines in
February, 1854" and that " Piaquemines was at
that time within the federal lines" Gen. Shell
don, an officer of the United States army, says:
went to Plaquemines 2lst November, 1868,
and remained continuously every day until Goth or
9th Of March, 1854. Paquemines was occupied
by the federal forces, and was wholly within the
picket lines of my command. From the time
went there, Plaquemines was continuously occu-
pied by the federal ferces until the surrender.
McWilliams resided at Plaquemines and kept q
store there. Told me soon after went there he
had taken the oath OF allegiance" McWilliams
Dit is elsewhere in the record shown took the
Der, 1862. 1t appears that David N. Barrow was
the agent in the graeter part of these transactions
of the plaintiff. Hamilton, o witness, says: " In
February, 1864. Irvine lived in WoodviIie, Miss.
| lived there then myself" Scott. q witness,
tesiifes that Irvine resided during the war with.
in the military lines of the Confederscy." Shields,
another witness, states that Barrow bought of r.
vine, between the lst and 10th of February, 1854,
q lot of cotton. At that time Irvine lived in Con.
federate lines. and Barrow in federal lines"
This purchase of cotton spoken Of by Shields,
there cannot be remaining doubt, is the one
alleged by plaintiffs to have been entered into on
the 10th Of February. 1864.
The efforts Of plaintiffs to show that only fort
erected by the Federal forces at Plaquemines was
within the Federal lines Is weak and abortive.
We think the evidence establishes fully and con-
clusvely that McWilliams, the plaintiff, at the
time Of the contract declared upon, was residing
in Plaquemines; that his residence there was
fixed residence, from the fact of bis having taken
the oath of allegiance to the United States and
having store and selling merchandise there, which
he no doubt did by permission of the Federal au-
thorities- It, is generally established beyond doubt
that Bryan Irvine at the time Of their negota-
toDs in cotton with McMasters & Barrow, were
permanent residents within the so.called Confede-