New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-14
THE COURTa.


. | trial, has received the careful c0nsloeratlOl
, of the court, and Judge Thread has af1irme
! his former views in lucid and able opinion
of great interest to the commercial commu
! nifty.
The opinion of the judge is as follows:
In this case, only two questions presen
themselves for solution
II l. Has factor or commission merchant, tt
whom goods are consigned for sale, any RICH
to pledge them or dispose of them in pay
ment OF, or as security for his own debt,
2. Does the act of 1868. No. $780, D 1913
relative to pledges of cotton press receipts
alter or change the general law of mandate
and impart to pledge. greater rights than
the piedger possesses?
Upon the first point, the law is elemen.
tary, deduced from an express article ofthe
code, that power to pledge must be spe.
cial and is not includDd in the power to cell,
besides the point has been directly settled
in the following cases: In II Louisiana, 166
Goods consigned are susceptible of being
identified and distinguished from those OF
the factor; they remain the property Of the
consignee; the factor has no right to pledge
them or to use them in any way for his own
purposes. They may be followed
and reclaimed in the hands OF
Stetson, Avery & Co. vs.. Quincy. In first
| An, page "a, it is said that "a factor can
! not pledge, nor give in payment for his own
| debts, property consigned to him." Slidell J.
Hadwin VS.. Fisk, and in 10 An, page 800,
''factors can not pledge or give in payment
| OF their own debts, property entrusted to
them to be disposed of for their principal
Mi Ter vs.. Schneider & Zuberbier." This
point is also governed by the maxim,
Nenaoplus dluis trdnsfe'7'e guam ipse ira
bet'
Cavaroc claims under Scott & Cage, and
must stand in their shoes, what they were
bound to do, Cavsroc must do, and that is.
to sell and account faithfully to the real
owner.
Upon the second point, the act of 1868 is
entitled to prevent the issue of false re.
ceipts or blls of lading, and to punish
fraudulent transfers of property by cotton
presses, whar6ngers and Others" It does
not seem by its title an act to change the
law of mandate or to alter the dispositions
OF the Civil Code. Section nine says: "That
cotton press receipts given for any goods.
wares, merchandise, grain, -four or other
produce, or commodity, stored or deposited
with any cotton press, wharfinger or any
other person or any bills of IadlDg given BY
any forwarder, boat, vessel or railroad,
transportation or transfer company, may be
transferred by endorsement thereon, and any
person to whom the same may be trans
ferred, shall be deemed and taken to be
the owner of the goods, wares. merchandise,
grain. flour and other produce or commodity
therein specified, so far as to give validity
to any pledge, lien or transfer made or
ceded by such person or persons but no
property shall be delivered except on surren
der and cancellation of said original receipt |
or bill OF lading or the endorsement of said /!
delivery thereon in case of partial delivery, |
all cotton press receipts or bills of ladng, |
however, which shall have the words "not |
negotiable" plainly written or stamped on
the face thereof, shall be exempt from the |
provisions of this section.
1t is sufficient for this case to say that |
Cavaroc has failed to produce any cotton
press receipts described by this section as
the basis OF his alleged pledge. His evil
ience shows that it was money obtained
upon the usual pledge of a bank, not filed
up, and Though the transfer of these cot.
.ons were to secure previous loans to Scott
Y Cage, and this upon the eve 9th suspen-
zion of his debtors. Although not necessary
% pass upon the validity of this section Of
he statute, it may be beneficial to say that
do not consider that statute authorizes |
my factor to pledge cottons consigned to
lin for sale, although he might pledge his
'wn cOttons by transfer of the receipts to
'bta!n loans, and that seems to be the sole
bject of the law-maker. 1t is purely com.
nercIal statute, and can not be strained to
roduce effects at war with reason and the
veil settled Jurisprudence on this subject.
For these reasons let there be judgment
Or plaintiff as prayed for.
ixth District Court-The Case OF the |
Assessors.
The Injunction sued out by the old Board |
4 State Assessors against the Governors |
ppointees came up yesterday before Judge |
'Ooley. in the Sixth District Court. On the
notion of John B. Howard, ESQ.,, attorney
DR. Swords and others, to dismiss the court
Of md haI
'hole proceedings dismissed.
But on the suggestion of Judge Cotton,
ttOrney for O'NeiIl and others, of the old
GARD, that one decree of the Supreme Court
! not Ste7'e decitiS, it was agreed that the
ase should stand as if no injunction had
cen issued, and the case tried on it's merits,
nd the question taken up after judgment to
e finally determined by the Supreme Court. :
his proceeding, We take it, places the ap- I
olntees of the Governor John W. Swords, !
enry l.. Rey and Joseph Mansion-in pos.
,ssiOn of the offices of Assessors for the
irst, Second and Third Districts of the city, !
I'd they, with Henry Heidenhain-the lat !
r now absent-it would seem, now consti- .
tie the Board OF State Assessors for the city 7
New Orleans.
Blanche Ellerman, wife of J. A. Arnold. l
!. the Richings Opera Troupe.-In this I
se plaintiff sued Mrs. Caroline Richings- c
srnard for the amount of her salary, at
venty dollars per week, as assistant prima o
)nna of that troupe. The agreement was .
furnish plaintiff with all travelling ex- .
,nses, except board bills. and benefit, for a
'r services during eight months. Judge y
,oley Yesterday gave judgment in favor of
aintiff. Whitaker & McBeth, for plaintiff; >.
ornor & Benedict, for defendant.
United States Circuit Court.
Myra Clark Gaines vs.. City of New Or O.
ans ct al; same vs.. III. 7. Lizardi: same a.
Delacroix.-In these cases Judge Brad.
= made the following decree: o
l. AS to the following named defendants. .
wit: Widow Roman Marsada, NJ. Danou, ;a
J. Lamont, Elizabeth Mintero, alias Dau-
line, and Paul Pesquier, who filed pleas to I.
e jurisdiction of the court, the decree | l,
III be that said defendants answer the bill =,
2. AS to the following named defendants
liy, DEGREES will be entered: William Crep- m
ii, John Diamond, E. B. SENEGAL (revived k
alnst Isabella Jenkins), the city of New
leans, III: Z. Lemezer, F. Delacroix and is
I'm Slidell.
3. The form of the decree in the Hennen to
Sc Will be adopted in making these DEGREES | o.
far as it is applicable, and except as here d,
modified. n
a. AS to the city of New Orleans the only y
oIecty to be maintained in the decree, is 70
at shown to be CLAIMED by the city at the Al
ne of fling this suit. The square CON- 8,
lsed between st. Peter street and lake
ad, on which the draining machine is stu h,
ed and also four other squares comprised a,
tween Dupre, st. Ann and St. Peter ci
reefs. VI
The city to be accountable for ,7aesne prof .,
J. a.
whether the prescription of three years "
lore ming Of the bill applies to the rents h,
"a prohts Notwithstanding the prescrip- T,
IN was dlsailowed as to the recovery of
e Lands themselves, the court inclined to Of
cide, put lett that to be considered by the m
nst RI W