The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1871-08-05
A Suit for Planters to Study.

H.Ware & Son VS.. "A. p. Morris.
J Judgment Misunderstanding and
Taliaferro dissenting. The plain
tiffs were commission merchants
in New Orleans. TO aid deten-
dant in the cultivation of his plan
tations and to secure for himself
the shipment of defendants cot
ton, he advanced defendant $4,000.
To secure plaintiffs from loss, de-
PENDANT made a deed Of convey
ance to a certain plantation. The
deed IS a full and complete sale,
passed before a notary public. We
say full and complete because all
the requisites of sale were com
Piled with they were able to con-
sent, willing to consent, did con-
sent, and the price agreed on and
paid. TO protect defendant, Il
counter letter was passed between
the parties stating the reasons for
the sale, and giving defendant the
right Of redemption plaintiffs
binding themselves +" reconvey
the land when the money was
paid. Defendant subsequently
went into bankruptcy, and in
making ont his list of debts and
property he made n" mention Of
this debt or this land, s'hecause,'
to nse his own language, che had
disposed of that land in payment
of that debt" 1t does seem to
us that if the deed and cOnntcr
letter fail to make ont Il sale, his
solemn acknowledgements under
oath would-at least it would show
defendants original intention.-
Plaintiffs sued for the land, and
the court decides that it was no
sale. Plaintiffs are left without q
remedy; they lose the $1,000; lose
the advantage of their commission
on the cotton, and find defendant
still in possession of the land. I'm
der the harsh ruling of law it may
possibly be correct, but we have
been taught that our courts dis
pense equity. Even if the above
decree be correct (which we do
not believe) it is certainly one of
those cases where equity mitigates
the rigor of the law. Such decrees
tend to destroy the last vestige
of confidence between merchant
and planter, and thereby cripples
every department of commerce
and agriculture. We have said
this much in this case because it
involves a matter of public inter
est. We know nothing of the
parties to this Sllit-we know the
case only before the court. 1t en-
braces the question now most i'm
portant of all Others with orr peo-
pie. The very life and existence
of our country depends npOn the
mutual confidence between the
merchant and planter. The mer-
chant is the lever power moving
our agricultural interest, and while
it is the duty Of the court to pro
tect the farmer, it is also their
duty to have the farmer fuithfn'
to his friend who StrrfT1'I NJ.
+ho hon, ~ .~."u ny him in
a. II necessity. Let the
courts do this, and we will at once
see the beauty of equity IN its
practical workings. Now suppose
the conrt shonld say that it was 4
sale and that defendant must < i've
up the land or pay the price, de
erecting also that plaintiffs should
recover the land or payment of
the money; conld defendant com
plaing Could he say that he was
forced to pay a debt he did not
owe? No, indeed. He should
think himself fortunate that he
still conld pay the debt and save
the land when i'm reality he had
forfeited all claim to the land. We
think the learned court erred, the
effect of which is serious to the
whole people. In this connection
we would drop one kind word to
our planting friends. iou are
seeing hard times now, but if the
worm should take the cotton and
| leave Won without corn or cotton,