New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-09
TIE COURTS.

In the bankruptcy proceedings OF T. J.
Harrison Mr.. Morris Hart was ordered to
deliver up the watch in question to the
assignee on being paid the sum Of So with
interest.
Mary Frances Rayne, wife OF James Jen.
nlngs McComb, brings suit against w. b.
Brodie for an Infringement of what is
known as the Arrow tie patent. the
plaintiff being the owner by right of pur-
chase. The suit is tor $4,000 damages. it
being alleged that BrOdie sold 5000 tons of
the ties claimed as an Infringement. The
jury gave verdict for the plaintiff.
Yesterday the Supreme Court of the State
discharged Mr.. Van NOrden from a custody
IN which he was held for contempt of the
Sixth District Court.
In the Fourth District Court McCloskev,
Eigley d Co., a commercial firm, nave en-
tered suit against James NJ. White. owner
OF the steamer Katie, alleging that White
is indebted to petitioners in the sum of
s'T-o 70, with interest at eight per cent
from February %. 1872, and attorneys fees.
tor various quantities of coal furnished him.
which same is secured by mortgage on said
steamboat. Petitioners pray for d writ of
sequestration. Judge Theard mas ordered
the writ to issue upon plaintiffs giving bond
and surety III $4,000. Bentinck Eagan.
attorney.
Wilson. Pagan & Co.. Z. Conerv, Son &
Co.. and Richard England, have instituted
similar suits against said James VI. White
to recover different sums Of money due hy
said steamer.
Judge Collens, of the Seventh District
Court, yesterday rendered the following de
cision in the case of Mrs. o. X. Dunninr vs..
John Coleman ct ais: The property ia cues
ton was adludicated by the Sheriff for a
price below the amount of the special mort
gage recorded before the recording OF John
Colemans paving contract. etc. The adju
dlcation was Illegal, because CoIemans
privilege was not superior to PLAINTIFF $
mortgage. The adjudication could be made
only Ill case the price exceeded tie special
mortgage. Plaintiff S mortgage was OBJ
tanned May !. 1869, and recorded on the
tenth agreeably to the laws existing at that
time.
Assuming that at that time Coleman had
a privilege which is very doubttull without
having recorded his contract and extensions
thereof, he certainly lost it on January /.
1870. by neglecting to record them before
that date.
Article 1913 of the constitution OF 1868
contains the following clause: The tacit
mortgages and privileges now existing in
this State shall cease to have effect against |
third persons after the first of January.
1870. unless duly recorded
Recorded" is in the past tense. and the
clear meaning is that the privileges is lost
with regard to third persons unless record
ed before the date specified.
Coleman could not revive his privilege so
as to give it a retroactive effect, to the
prejudice OF plaintiffs mortgage. BY viz
tue OF COlelnan's own omission, his contract |
had ceased 20 have effect, and plaintiffs
priority became thereby a liked fact.
Inc subsequent recording on January Is, |
le.G, can have no effect, except against
sucn privileges and mortgages as were re-
corded after that date. Sucl, is the neces-
sary effect OF article l23 of the constitution
ana the statute OF 1869, and article 1914 of
me new code, and even of article 3242 of
The previous code. The Surveyors certiti-
cate. dated February %, 1870, but not re-
corded III! May lS, 1870, could not have the
enect OF giving a prior privilege, when the
contract itself, under which the work had
been done, had ceased to confer prior Dyiv;-
lege. On May Is, 1870, article 1874 of RAYS
code was already in force. 1t took effect
on April J., 1870. See page Us of RAYS Di-
gest.
1t says: NO privilege shall have effect
against third persons unless REQUIRED nv
law in the parish where the property to he
IS situated. 1t shall confer no
preference on the creditor who holds II
over creditors WHO have acquired a Inort-
gage, unless the act or other evidence of
the debt is recorded on the day that the
(meaning, think, the data OF the
recorded by the third persona was
entered into"
The object evidently is to carry out the
astlcle OF the constitution which is to give
ehect to privileges as well as MORTGAGES,
only IN the order of the dates on which they
are recorded respectively, and to DO away
WIN the Old rule that a privilege, as such,
a"nTs precedence Of a mortgage, though of
The decree set aside tbo nav;no contract
recorded by Coleman against the citv and
the paving bill. and also set aside the adj
Judicatlon made by the Sheriff as if the
had never been made, and dismissed
every other respect plaintiffs demand as
in case Of non suit.