The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-11-08
An IMPORTANT DECISION.

An IMPORTANT DECISION.
sHE QUESTION OF LIEN ON CROPS FOE SUPPLIES
The following very important decision rem
'lered by Judge Cullom will be read with in
terest by every man in the city:
MALE & CAMMAcK VS.. j. U. AND II. M
PAyNE.-FJh District Court, No 1865, Paris
Of Orleans. evidence in this case clearly
discloses the following facts !: George M
Freshman, OF the parish Of St Landry, had
for several years previous to A. ID. 1873, done
business with tie defendants as his factors
and commission merchants. In A. d. 1873 ht
vious accounts in sum of $1,000, more OF
less. In A. d. 1873 he made arrangements
with plaintiffs for supplies, advances, etc.
necessary to the planting cultivation, gather
ing, etc, Of his crop. They complied with
their part of the agreement and on the 9th
day Of July, A. D. 1873, Freshman gave them
his promissory note, payable to their order,
for cash and supplies for the working of the
growing crop of 1873, on his (my) plantation
in st. Landry" pledging said crop and bind
ing himself to ship the same to them. Said
note was given for $500 IS, with eight per
cent interest after maturity, to wit Deem
year, Messrs. Nalle & Cammack, acting in &C
cordance with their agreement above named,
became the creditors of Freshman by open
account current in the additional sum of
1919 10, making total Of $579 S.
On or about the 18th day of December,
1873, freshman forwarded six bales of cotton
from his place to Messrs. Male Il Cammack
on board the steamboat Palmetto, marked G
F-B, three bales; G F-S, two bales; G FIJI, one
bale. He took bill of lading for five bales
of this cotton; three bales of which were
marked G F-B, and two G F-S. The bill of
lading shows this. Owing to some unex-
planned cause, the steamer Palmetto proceeded
no further than Churchville, on the Atchafa-
laya River. Here she reshipped her freight on
the LESSEE Taylor, and consigned this identi-
cal cotton to Messrs. j. U. Il H. NJ. Payne, on
the 2lst day of December, 1873, at 50 SO per
bale. The bill Of lading gives the marks in
the margin. as follows &c F-S, 2; G F-B, s.;
G F-4, /. Thus, it appears that one bale
more was shipped than the bill Of lading
called for.
About the 1st to the Sd of January, 1874,
Messrs. Payne L. Co. received these six bales OF
cotton, with accompanying bill of lading. 1t
was placed on the market and sold by them on
ceeds of $2S7 OS, which these gentlemen
passed on their books to the credit of FLESH
mans account with them. Due notice of
these transactions were given freshman by
them. On the 9th of January, 1874, the latter
had informed Messrs. Male Il Cammack, that
he had shipped them six bales ofcotton 'four
weeks ago." previously, although his bill of
iading called tor but fire, which, through
mistake of the boats clerk, had been sent
to J. U. & H. NJ Payne. He makes NEIL
ton OF the fact that the cotton had been sold
by them, and instructs Messrs. Male d. Cam
mack "to go and demand the proceed"
thereof Male & Cammack did go and de-
mand them, and were informed that they (P.
K Co. had received the cotton with accom-
panying bill of lading, had sold it and placed
the proceeds of it to the credit of Mr.. Flesh
mans account with them. Messrs Male 4
Cammack were not satisfied with this termin-
alton of the matter, and instituted these pro-
coedings to compel Messrs. J. q. Il II. M.
Payne to pay over the proceeds of said cotton,
to-wit, 1892, to them. They urge the fact
that their advances and supplies were used by
freshman in making the cotton, and that they
have a privilege CART. 3217, C. c. on it, which
OF right and as q matter of law, should be first
paid. Wood VS.. Galloway, 81 A. All, and q
A. 1851 To this the defendants sreply that
plaintiffs have no privilege as to them, be-
cvuse there is no evidence in the case that was
ever recorded
Article 1928, c. c., declares that "Privi-
leges are valid against third persons, from the
date OF recording the act or evidence of in
debtedness as provided by law" Plaintiffs
urge that the consignment of the cotton to
them by freshman, on the 18th day of Deem
Der, 1873, gave them privilege which cannot
be superseded. To this defendants reply that,
the cotton was also consigned to them; that
they had received and sold it and entered the
proceeds to the credit Of the consignor in part
payment of his balance Of Indebtedness to
them, before they were made aware of the claim
of the plaintiffs, and before they saw the letter
of advice given by Freshman to the plaintiffs.
/ cannot consider this sound argument under
the circumstances.
l. Freshman, who alone had the authority
to consign the cotton, had shipped it to Nalle
4 Cammack. In reshipping it an error was
committed by the officer Of the Palmetto, |
which is unequivocally testified to by the cap
tain. As Nalle l. Cammack had nothing to do |
with this error, their rights ought not to be al
fected by it and, as the consignor had moth
ing to do with it, and knew nothing Of it, I'M
til after some weeks had elapsed, it cannot |
fairly be pretended the confessed error should
have the effect of altering his will, or
Of depriving him of any choice in the |
The officers of the Pal
netto undertook to transport the |
cotton to plaintiffs, and they were charged
and entrusted with no other prerogative or |
duty. They were not authorized, under any |
circumstances, to change Fleshman's con-
signment If their act in doing so was en-
ti.ely unauthorized, it cannot be binding on
the shipper, and therefore cannot be taken
advantage of by the defendants, who were not |
the consignees, so far as to warrant them in
retaining the net proceeds. Such consign-
ment did Justify them in paying charges,
selling, and charging the usual commissions.
The simple consignment gave the defendants
no privilege, they not having advanced any
thing On the cotton. Collins vs.. Austin, L.
SO2; Goodhue VS.. McClarty, 8 An. 447. See
y cCutchon vs. Wilkinson, IL A. 4S3; Shaw VS..
Grant, - A. 81
SO far as the evidence goes, it shows but
one shipment as to Fleishman. He had