New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-28
COURT RsCokl,.
$ SATURDAY, JUNE q, 1874.
United States Circuit Court.

Motion in arrest of Jud gment granted by
Juetice Bradley, Judge WOODS. dissentla6s
ID Superior District Court.
Wallace Woods vs.. Workingmen's Bank.
Suit dismissed on the ground that stock
holder can not sue as creditor as in plain
tiffs petition.
Superior Criminal Court.
r. The Indictment in the case of G. Morel
was guashed because it was shown that he
committed the crime in the day time. and
did not enter with intent to steal in the
nigh: time. 40 s5A
7'J 9vEkDtcrs.
( E. Marshall, burglary; guilty
M Mrs Boylan. knowingly receiving stolen
good; not guilty.
Hattie Roosevelt and Annie Hall, lar
ceny, mistriai.
INFoRMATIONs FILED.
Carrying concealed weapons-Robert But
Ter.
Robbery-Leon Wolf
Grand larceny-William Natiock.
10 ...., SENTENCED.
Barthy Collins and Pat Jones, burglary
and larceny; nolle prOsequi entered on the
charge of larceny; each seven years in the
Penitentiary.
Fourth District Court.
Sandy Rhodes VS.. Louisiana Paper Manu-
featuring Company and w. H. Pember-
ton.-Action for damages from explosion
of boiler in defendants mill, April Is, 1872
Judgment for plaintiff of $4,000. q
P. B. s. Pinchbacl, vs.. Hugo Redwitz.-
Action under the civil rights bill. Answer
Of defendant denies discrimination, and al
leges that plaintiff seeks to deprive him of
privileges guaranteed by the constitution
of the United States; that plaintiff intended
to create a disturbance, and asserts a re-
conventional demand of $4,000, which he
prays to be allowed. - 3
P. Donnelly VS.. s. T. Goodwin.-In this
case p. Donnelly sued S. 7. Goodwin for the
sum of $500 for rent of a certain dwelling
house in this city. during the thirteen
months beginning March |, 1873, and end
irg March 81, 1874. Plaintiff simultaneously
with the filing of his petition, obtained a
writ of provisional seizure, under and by
virtue OF which he seized the furniture of
the defendant found in the said house.
Nine days thereafter. the sheriff released
the property from seizure, the defendant
having furnished forthcoming bond in the
sum Of 1928
On the twenty-fith Of March, 1874. the
defendant, suggesting to the court thai the
movable properly seized By and taken into
possession of the sheriff under the said writ,
rule on the plaintiff to show cause why
the seizure should not be set aside at plain
tfis cost. The rule was tried and, after
argument, submitted to the court for de-
cisiOn.
Article 2675 Of the Civil Code of 1925 pro.
vided that: the lessor has for the payment
of 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" That article was amended
by the statute of the eleventh of Feb
ruary, 1852, page thirteen the acts of
that year, which statute entitled the
lessee to retain out of the property sub
iected BY law to the lessons privilege his
clothes and linen, and those Of his wife and
family; his artia military accoutrements,
and the tools AID instruments necessary for
the exercise Of the trade or profession by
which he gains his living and that of his
family. The said article, as amended. was
adopted as article 2705 Revised Civil Code
Article 1892, Revised Civil Code, sets
forth all the personal rights that are not
liable to The payment of debts due to any
creditor, and article 2705 the various az
exempt from the lessons privilege, and
which the lessee mas Q right to retain.
Article GA, Code of Practice, prevented
the sheriff from seizing the properly Of the
lessee exempted from the lessons privilege
under article 2705 Civil Code, bu. it con
tanned no provision preventing the seizure
of the personal rights exempted under ar
ticle 1892.
This omission in the article of the Code of
Practice was remedied by act No. 50. seq
sion acts of1S72, prohibiting the sheriff from
Selling the personal rights above referred
to. 1t went further and prevented the
oh riH fran noi1ipu houco Iii
ture to the value OF $780, Another act NO.
~ was passed by the Legislature in 1874,
prohibiting the constable as well as the
sheriff from Selling the property and rights
specified in the act of 1872, and enlaryiny
the exemptions of the latter act. The act Of
1874 provides penalty for its infractiou.
pass by the laws having reference to
predial estates, as they have no bearing on
the matter before me for consideration
The counsel for the plaintiff argues that
article 644, of the Code Of Practice, only
prohibits the seizure of the property of the
debtor under fieri facias, for debt in an
ordinary suit. and that its provisions were
rot intended to deprive the lessor of his
privilege. To sustain him in this view of
the law he cites the case of Parker VS..
Starkweather, 7 N. S. 337. In that case the
defendant took rn!e on the plaintiff Ia les
sor), to show cause why he should not sur
render up quantity of blacksmith's tools
and utensils which he had seized under an
the district judge, and the plaintiff ap-
pealed. Judge Porter, in delivering the
opinion of the court, SAID:
The tenth section OF the act entitled IAN
act to provide for the printing and promul-
CATION of the amendments made to the
Civil Code of the State OF Louisiana. passed
April l2, 1924 provides that in case the
Code OF Practice should contain any provi-
sion contrary or repugnant to those of the
Civil Code, the latter shali be considered as
virtually repealed or thereby amended in
that respect. Acts 1924, p. l7S.
Is the provision of the Code OF Practice
contrary and repugnant to that of the Civil
Code! We are OF the opinion it is not The
rules prescribed by tieri tacias are for.or-
binary cases of debt where no special priv,
ege existed independent of the judgment. |
II the debtor had pledged his tools for |
sum OF money, we suppose there could be
no doubt Of mis- being unable to get them
back until he paid the money he had Dor
rowed on them. The right Of pledge con-
ferred by law in favor of the lessor must |
nave the same effect, or the words have no
meaning. The correctness of this construc.
lion will, we think, be strengthened by re-
,urring to two other articles of our code. |
Article 2677 of the Louisiana Code declares
hat the movables belonging to third per-
IONS found on the premises are subject to
he pledge of the lessor. The Code of Prac.
ice only prohibits the seizure of the prop
,rty of the debtor under tieri facias for |
lebt in an ordinary suit We do not sup
pose that it could be csntended that this |
provision deprived the lessor of his priv |
ege: and if it does, we do not see
low the article relied on by the appellee |
the lessee) Can have that effect in relation
o tools, etc. ''1t is necessary to remark |
hat in this instance the seizure was made |
lnder writ of tieri facias but the suit |
II which the judgment was rendered was
or rent, and We are of opinion that the |
lriyilaya of the lessor was not Inst hr the |