The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1885-01-31
AN INTERESTING DECISION.

AN INTERESTING DECISION.
Jadge Pntdee, in the United States
Circuit Court, has handed down the fol
lowing decision
United States Circuit Court.-Meyer
We'll vs.. Thompson. Lepere g. MOffat
iutervenois.
The question submitted is upon the
intervention. Defendant executed a
mortgage OH plaintiff, of II plantation.
At the time of the execution Of the
mortgage the mu!es and the machinery
in question were upon the plantation
and in use 10 connection with it for the
purpose of wo king it. Subsequently
and with knowledge Of the mortgage,
tho %interveDors purchased these arti-
cles that We're severed frnm the plantA
tation and We're in the possession Of in
tevenors when the proceedings to fore
cloae the mortgage were instituted.
That mules and machinery SO sitaa-
ted were by distinction immovab!es is
determined by G. c., Art. 463.
The Case Of Citizens Bank vs.. Knopf
2Ann., III, holds that machinery at
Tackled t"a plantation u.ed for planta
tiou purposes, though inclndedi in a mort
gage, if purchased aud removed even
during the tendency Of a ~ait to Ell
force the mortgagr,were with'lrawntr from
the operation of the same. The ground
upon which the conclusion Of the court
ia placed i, that when detached from
the sugar house and removed from the
plantation the machinery became
again Il movable. aud as such could
not BE- susceptible of mortgage that
this would he true if the purchaser was
in bad faith ; that is, purchased with
knowledge Of the mortgage.
A strong argument, both at the trial
and subsequently, by brief, was made
in favor Of the distinction which the
law had given to the mules and ma
ehinery continuing so Ions AS the per-
sons dealing with the Property knew
Of the mortgage. But in cases not in
voIving any provision Of the Constitu
ton of the United States, and not
springing out Of negotiable paper(vhich
last are ranked among causes governed
blythe general law)the construction Civ
On by the of count last resort Of q State
and not qualified by any subsequent de
cision "a to the meaning Of a statnte ia
apart of tho statute, aud is biuding up
on the Federal courts.
In ~Leiingwell ". Warren, 2 Black,
Cos, the Supreme Court says : THE
construction given to a statute, of q
State by the .highe.t judicial tribunal
Of such State is regarded a. a part Of
the statute, aud is rs binding upon the
courts Of the United States us the text,
There is no ambiguity-the opinion
Of the Supreme Court, Citizens Bank
vs.. Knopf. Nor has it been at
oil qualified by AIRY subsequent decis
ion Of that tribunal. The question sub
mitted is not one of those where the
Federal courts may act independently
ofthe judicial construction Of the high
est tribunal; Of a State. The reported
case is even stronger than this. for the
severence of the property from the
plantation Was effected even after the
Institution Of the suit to ~foreclose.
The knowledge there was certainly as
clear as here. This case ia, therefore, para
mount with this court and leaves no lat
itude except to ascertain carefully what
the views OF the court, as expressed
are , these close the case against the
plaintiff upon a Judgement IN favor OF
the iDtervenors. with a reservation to
the plaintiff of rightto sue for all dam
ages, if the properly mortgaged shall
not or has not realized a sufficient
amount to pay the mortgage.
Let there be judgment accordingly.