New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-25
THE COURTS.
supreme Court Opinions.

Supreme Court Opinions
DIR. Samuel Chopin VS.. w. b. Harmon
and wife.-This suit was brought to re
cover $4,000 for medical services rendered
to Mrs. Harmon. The husband and wife
were both sued, and there was a verdict
and Judgment against both defendants il
solid0 for $1,000, The wife alone appealed
The court says
The services were rendered to the wife
during the marriage, and there is no ale.
cation or proof that the spouses were sepe
rated in property. The debt is a cOmmu
nifty debt, for which the wife is not person
ally bound. G.. c.. 24O2, 2403. The hus-
band is bound to furnish her with medical
aid when needed. G. c., 100. And it can
not be said that the services thus rendered
Injured to her separate benefit in the
sense which would render her personally
responsible for the debt 1t is therefore
ordered, etc, that the judgment of the dis
trict court be set aside, and that plaintiffs
claim against her be rejected.
Southern Dry Dock Company VS.. Bayou
Sara Packet Company, A. G.. GOddin, d. G..
McCan and E. NJ. Rusha.-The plaintiff sued
the Bayou Sara Packet Company for $3.50,
and the defendants GOddin, MeCan and Ru-
sha, to revoke $50 far as it affects petition
.ers' rights the transfer OF the steamer
Wagner, made by the said Bayou Sara
Packet Company to said GOddin, Rusha
y
Of petitioners rights. There was Judgment
in favor of plaintiff, and the defendants ap-
pealed.
The court, in passing on the case, says:
The evidence satisfies us that the packet
company was in insOlvent circumstances
when it made the transfer of the boat, and
that the transferees knew this; GOddin was
president of the company and McCan and
Rusha were members thereof The price
was the assumption of certain debts of the
company, very large proportion of which
was due to themselves. There is no evil
dence to show that any portion of the
price, if paid, Injured to the benefit OF the
plaintiff.
The property of the debtor is the com
mon pledge of his creditors" G. c., 1888
A right implied in all obligations is "that
the property of the debtor shall be liable
for all the consequences attending non
performance" G. c., 1868. Therefore, lit
results that every act done by a debtor
with the intent of depriving his creditor of
any eventual right he has upon the prop
erty of such debtor is illegal, and ought,
as respects such creditor, to be avoided"
G. c., 1869.
IF the party with whom the debtor con
tracted be in fraud as well as the debtor,
he shall not, in the annulliDg of the con-
tract, be entitled to a restitution of the
price or consideration he may have paid,
except so far as he shall prove has Injured
to the benefit of the creditors by adding to
the amount of property applicable to the
payment of their debts; but if the only cOu-
sideration be a sum due from such debtor TO
the party with whom he contracted, then
the only restitution to be made is the plac-
ing the parties in the situation in which
they were before the contract complained
Of" G. c., 1882.
And EVERY contract shall be deemed to
been made in fraud of creditors when the
Obligee knew that the obligOr was in insol-
vent circumstances, and when such contract
gives to the Obligee, if he be creditor, any
advantage over the other creditors of the
.obligor." G. c., 1894.
Judgment affirmed.
Tyrce g. Co. VS. Sands, Miller g. Co., in
tervenOrs-An Alabama case decided &C
eording to Alabama law, the same not
being in conflict with our own.
Tyrce & Co, cotton factors, sold cotton
to Sands & Co.; Sands g. Co. borrowed
money from Miller & Co., bankers, predi-
Gated upon proposed purchase of cotton.
The cotton was bought from the cotton fac
tors, but not paid for. Miller g. Co. are
claiming for their advances, and the contest
was between the cotton factors and them.
Under the law of Alabama the cotton
factor has his right upon the property and
lien reserved for fifteen days, as provided
for by similar law in Louisiana reserving
the lien of the factor for five days.
The court held that it would enforce the
Alabama law. and gave TO the plaintiffs the
right to recover the cotton or its proceeds.
William Il. Terrill VS.. ii. T. Hays, sheriff,
ct al. Appeal from the Fourth District
Court, parish of Orleans.
Plaintiff eniOined the sale of 700 gallons
of rum converted into neutral spirits, seized
an the suit OF Block vs. Wallenberg, on the
ground that he was the owner thereof;
Hays, the sheriff, filed general denial, and
called Block and his surety on an indem-
nifty bond in warranty. From Judgment
against Hays for the value of the property
he has appealed.
The facts are that about March IA, 1867,
plaintiff agreed to sell to Wallenberg seven
barrels Of rum, on the condition that they
were to be used, and were delivered under
this condition at the rectitying establish
ment Of said Wallenberg.
Some DAYS afterwarq Wallenberg caused
the barrels to be emptied into his rectifer
and the contents converted into neutral
spirits. During the time, plaintiff made
several demands for payment, Wallenberg
telling him on one occasion after the con
version that on the arrival of a certain
schooner he woHld pay for the property
Prior to this event, the establishment Of
Wallenberg and its contents were seized in
the suit OF Block, the liquor, as neutral
spirits, still being in the cistern.
The plaintiff, as a witness, says. 'Tht
whole Of the liquor / sold to Wallenberg
was put into his rectiier."
Although he repeatedly asserted that he
was the owner of the liquor at the time OF
the seizure, we think it is shown that, as to
third persons without knowledge there was
such delivery to Wallenberg as to subject
Il. a movable. to seizure for the debts q
Wallenberg; and particularly SO, as it had
been 80 materially altered as to its nature
and packages or condition. The article sold
by plaintiff was not the article seized. II
had undergone a change and been enhanced
in value. The bad faith of Wallenberg