New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-30
NEW ORLEANS TUESDAY, JUNE 80 1874

e. n. WcDduloAS ~ w. duU Uuo pl0iueAA o
creditor of an entirely different firm, the
garnishee had privilege on the proceeds
of the cotton which gave them the right of
being paid by preference.
l. Because they are the creditors of e. b.
McDaniels g. Co., whereas plaintiffs are
creditors of D. J. Mcdonald & Co.
?. They having made advances to E. q.
McDaniels e. Co. on the faith of the con-
signment OF cotton frem time to time, are
privileged creditors.
As to the first proposition it was shown
that the individuals composing the firms Of
d. j. Mcdonald & Co. and z. II. McDanieis
& Co. were precisely the same, and that
the change in the name was made to facili-
tate collections. do not think that
change in the name of q partnership firm,
without any change in the terms and con-
ditions OF it, has the effect of creating an
entirely different commercial being. The
constituency remaining the same, and the
relative rights of the members being identical
and not even settled by closing the books,
balancing and settling their mutual ac-
counts, can see no difference in the moral
being of the two. conclude therefore
that it is essentially and in fact the same
firm. "A partnership may have one name,
or it may have two names, at one and the
same time, and yet remain identically the
same partnerships" Parsons on Part, p. 255.
2. Az to the privilege set up, by the
garnishee. privileges are valid against
third persons from the date of the act of
evidence of indebtedness, as provided by
law" C. c., 1878. '.N0 privilege shall have
effect against third persons unless recorded
in the manner required by law in the parish
where the property to be affected is cit
uated. 1t shall confer no preference on the
creditor who holds over creditors who have
acquired a mortgage. unless the act or
other evidence of the debt is recorded on
the day that the contract was entered into"
C. C. 1874. While, therefore, this article is
impracticable in certain cases, this is not
clearly one of them. The privilege in this
case might have been recorded on the very
day the debt was contracted. But the gar.
nishee in this case has no privilege, 80 far
as the evidence discloses, taat under any cir
cumstances could entitle them to prefer
ence. Their debtors were not producers, and
the advances made by them were not made
by virtue of special instructions on con-
signment of the cotton in question. E. H.
McDaniels & Co. were merchants, not pro-
ducers, and it is not shown nor pretended
that the garnishees had made any advances
for the production of the cotton. They
acted as the factors of McDaniels & Co. in
selling it. do not think, therefore, that
they have privilege. Article l23, consti-
tuition of Louisiana. Privileges are strict
juris and can not be extended to cases not
expressly provided for by law. c. c., 3lS5.
Cause vs.. Bullard. l6 An. l07. Landry VS..
Blanchard, i'd, 1873. White, adms., ,Daigle
| and H. B. White, for use ETC., vs.. Thomp.
son w. Bird, % An, 270.
| The garnishees and intervenors in this
case have not recorded their privilege and
they can not be decreed to have any beyond
the charges on the c0tton-commissiOn
etc. There must be judgment for plaintif Il
against E. H. McDaniels, 81 An, 80, for
the sum Of $453 IS with eight per cent in
terest from the eighteenth day Of February
1874, and also against the garnishees. John
| Chaffe, Brother & Son, for the sum of the
| proceeds of said cotton, less charges and
commissions, or so much thereof as may bt
necessary to satisfy plaitiff's demand
There must be judgment against the inter