New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-11-29
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER :S. 1874.

The following cases were submitted on
the twenty fourth instant:
Edward Dupassenr, plaintiff m error, vs.
Albin Rochereau.-A. G. Story. counsel for
plaintiff in error: Louis Janin tor defendant
in error.
John w. Cannon, plaintiff in error. rs.
the city of New Of!eans.-R. II MARI and
T. Phillips, counsel for plaintiff in error:
Wheeler II. Peckham for the defendant in
error.
James NJ. Thompson. appellant. va. w.
Il. Donaldson ct al.-Argued by w. L. Otto
and Jaan A. Grow. counsel for appellant.
I. j. Durant for the appellees.
First District Court.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Petty iarceny-William Haywood, Jane
Williams. John Lee. } oe Joseph.
SENTENCED
Petty larceny--CharIes Moore, eighteen
months: Victoria Jones. nine months; Rob-
ert Brow, six months.
Assault and battery.-laura Taylor.
three months.
second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS of William NJ. Perkins. Annie
Marie Armand, wife Of Joseph Land,
Ferdinand Malard, Christian August Vie.
mann, John McGnnis and William j. Tay.
Tor opened.
Marie Dupart and Chris;oph Kicker pray
to be emancipated.
Fifth District Court.
judge Cullom rendered the following
Joseph Chardon vs. Eugene Defez This
suit is brought by landlord to recover rent
dues amounting to $780, with five per cent
interest thereon. He prays for the recogni-
ton and enforcement of his lessons privi-
lege on all the property found On the leased
premises. The issue is the general denial.
A,yuemdo counsel commended
that should plaintiff be found entitled to the
Judgment he seeks, he would, nevertheless,
not be entitled to the enforcement Of his
privilege on the furniture of the defendant,
it having been shown to be worth only $3.50.
The article GIL Of the Code of Practice and
the amendments thereof were referred to,
and relied upon as sustaining this defense.
l have carefully examined that article,
which reads as follows: "The sheriff can
not seize the linen and clothes belonging to
the debtor, or his wife, nor his bed, nor
those Of his family. nor his arms and mill
| tary Announcements, nor the tools and instru
| ments necessary for the exercise of his call
| ing, trade or profession by which he makes
a living; nor shall he, in any case, seize the
rights of personal servitude, of use and
| habltatiOn, Of usufruct to the estate Of
minor child. nor the income of dotal prop
| erty, nor money due for the salary Of
an officer, nor wages nor recompense
| for personal service, nor household and
kitchen furniture, to the value of 5000"
See act of February 90, 1874 1t is evident
| from the articles of property herein emu
| merated. that the object Of the Legislature
| was to exempt them from seizure under
| writ of feri facia5 to satisfy an ordinary
Judgment. The landlord has no privilege
nor right of pledge on some Of them, aud
! therefore it is idle to SUPPOSE the amend
mrnts affect him. The acts amen latoiy Of
this article. including act No. 30 of 1872,
pa oe 90. were never intended to disturb the
rights of the landlord, established by ar
ticles 21O.-!. 80 of the new Civil Code.
"The lessor has for the payment oil his
rent and other obligations of the lease,
right OF pledge on the movable effects of the
| lessee which are found on the property
| leased" 'In the exercise OF this right the
lessor may seize the objects which are sub
iect to it before the lessee takes them away
or within fifteen days after they are taken
away, if they continue to be the property
Of the lessee and can be identified" Art.
oSS OF the Code of Practice declares that
''the lessor may seize even in the hands OF
a third person such furniture as was in the
house leased, if the same have been re-
moved by the lessee, provided he declare
on oath that the same has been removed
without his consent, within fifteen days
previous to his suit being brought"
In the case of Desban vs.. Emma Pick
cit, NJ. Stiewell intervenor, Is An, $50,
the Supreme Court held that ''article 2S8
of the Code of Practice may be incorpora
ted into article 2679. REV. c. G. NO9) of
the Civil Code, and be consistent and har-
monions with it's provisions" And in that
case the court fully announced the law as
laid down in the article OF the code. The
several amendments of article GA, Code ST
Practice, can not be understood to affect or
impair the two articles of the Civil Code
already quoted, because, rs the Supreme
Court very properly says, the law 1.-THE
courts) 'never favor repeats by impllca-
ton" 10 An. $50; An. ~. Article GA.
Code of Practice, and the several amend
ments of 1872 and 1874, have reference TO
the execution of judgments. which direct
the payment of sums of money, and not to
the privilege of the lessor, his obligations
ane rights.
1.-The right which the lessor has over the
property of the estate, and on the movabies
which are found on the land leased, for his
rent, is of higher nature than mere privi-
lege The latter ia only enforced on the price
arising from the sale Of movabes to which it
applies. 1t does not enable the creditor to
take or keep the effects themselves, spec-
ially, The lessor, on the contrary, may
take the effects themselves and retain them
until he is paid Art. G. c. 32lS. "The
privilege of the lessor is enforced on the
property subject to it, in the manner de-
ecribed in the title Of lease" Art. 1919 e. e.
There must be Judgment, with privilege, as