Case Name: UNION GARMENT CO., Limited, v. NEWBURGER et al. MOSS v. KORY
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1909-06-14
Citations: 124 La. 820
Docket Number: No. 17,649
Parties: UNION GARMENT CO., Limited, v. NEWBURGER et al. MOSS v. KORY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 819–831

Head Matter:
(50 South. 740.)
No. 17,649.
UNION GARMENT CO., Limited, v. NEWBURGER et al. MOSS v. KORY.
(June 14, 1909.
On the Merits, Nov. 2, 1909. Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1909.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 630*) — Dismissal-Incomplete Record — Loss.
If the court is unable to review the judgment appealed from because a material part of the record has been lost without appellant’s fault, the appeal will not be dismissed, but the case will be remanded for new trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2723; Dec. Dig. ■§ 630.*]
2. Action (§ 57*) — Consolidation—Same Issues.
Plaintiff, having purchased property of an insolvent firm at the liquidators’ sale, sued in the civil district court for specific performance and to cancel a mortgage on the property made by one of the partners after the sale, but before its consummation, on the ground that such mortgage was fraudulent, in which suit the liquidators, the auctioneer, the firm, and its members, and the nominal mortgagee were made defendants. Pending such suit, the holder of the mortgage notes began executory process in another division of the court, in which plaintiff intervened and enjoined the executory process on the ground of fraud in executing the mortgage; and thereafter petitioned that the holder of the notes be made a defendant in the specific performance suit, and the executory process suit was transferred to the division in which the specific performance suit was pending, and the suits were consolidated. Held that the suits, being between the same parties and involving the same issues, were properly consolidated, though the consolidation was not expressly authorized by Code Prac. art. 422.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Action, Cent. Dig. §§ 632-675; Dec. Dig. § 57.*]
3. Appeal and Error (§ 189*) — Presentation Below — Objections — 'Consolidation op Actions.
Objections to the transfer of a case to another division of the civil district court and its consolidation with an action there pending cannot be first made on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 189.*]
4. Principal and Agent (§§ 155, 175*) — Rights of Parties — Authority to Purchase.
A purchase of property at an auction sale by an unauthorized agent was not binding upon the nominal purchaser until ratified by it, ánd was not'binding upon the sellers, and they could refuse to recognize the sale even after being notified of its ratification by the purchaser.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 5S1, 663; Dec. Dig. §§ 155, 175.*]
5. Principal and Agent (§ 34*) — Powers— Power Coupled with Interest.
An insolvent firm and another executed an agreement, by which, in consideration of the latter advancing money to settle the firm debts, the firm agreed to vest the administration of its property in him, to be administered as he thought best, empowered him to sell all its property for that purpose, and bound themselves not to revoke the authority thereby given; and on the same day the firm and its members, the liquidator, and certain creditors made an agreement by which the latter agreed to postpone their claims and advance money to facilitate a settlement, to be repaid out of the first proceeds of the firm assets. Held, that the power of attorney to the liquidator to sell firm property could not be revoked by a partner; it being an essential part of the contract.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. § 55; Dec. Dig. ‘§ 34.*]
6. Principal and Agent (§ 103*) — Sale of Property — Sale Through Auctioneer.
Liquidators of an insolvent firm who were authorized to sell firm property could make the sale through an auctioneer.
[Ed. Note — For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Dec. Dig. § 103.*]
7. Fraudulent Conveyances (§ 295*) — Mortgages — 'Validity—Evidence—Sufficiency.
In an action to cancel a mortgage of partnership property placed thereon by one .of the firm, evidence held to show that the mortgage was simulated and fraudulent.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Frauduent Conveyances, Dec. Dig. § 295.*]
8. Bills and Notes (§ 332*) —Bona Fide Purchaser — Evidence.
A transferee of notes secured by a mortgage fraudulently given upon property which the mortgagor had agreed should be sold for the benefit of creditors of his firm, was not a bona fide holder; be being the father-in-law of the mortgagor, and having knowledge of the latter’s agreement authorizing the sale -of the property for creditors.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 805; Dec. Dig. § 332.*]
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; George H. Theard, Judge.
Consolidated actions by the Union Garment Company, Limited, against Sylvan New-burger and others, and by Hartwig Moss against Edward Ivory. From a judgment for the first-named plaintiff, Moss and others appeal.
Affirmed.
Benjamin Rice Forman, for appellant Moss. Solomon Wolff, for appellants Kory and Dueros. Charles Rosen, for appellee Union Garment Co., Ltd. Titche & Rogers and B. I. Cahn, for other appellees.

Opinion:
On Motions to Dismiss.
NICHOLLS, J.
In the certificate of the clerk to the transcript of appeal that officer certifies that:
The "answer of Edward Kory filed October 28, 1907, three notes filed July 24, 1908, and sheriff's indemnity bond filed September 13, 1908, are missing from the record, and cannot be found notwithstanding due and diligent search cannot be found."
The appellees move to dismiss the appeal by reason of the absence of those papers from the record.
Since the filing of. the motions to dismiss a carbon copy of the missing answer of Edward Kory has been found, and replaces the original.
The practice of this court where a material part of the record or the evidence adduced has been lost through no fault of the appellant, and he is unable for that reason to bring up a record upon which the court can review the judgment appealed from, has been to remand the case to be tried de novo, and not to dismiss the appeal.
Under that rule, the' motion to dismiss would be denied, and the cause remanded, if the situation of the cause was such as to require the application of that rule to this case. ' ' , .
As we are presently advised, the missing papers will not be necessary to enable us to pass upon the issues submitted in this ease for our decision.
If, on the hearing, it should be ascertained that such is not the ease, we can then order the case to be remanded. See, on this subject, Barton v. Burbank, 119 La. 227, 43 South. 1014, and the numerous authorities therein cited; Grubbs v. Pierson, 111 La. 101, 35 South. 474; Immanuel Presbyterian Church v. Riedy, 104 La. 319, 29 South. 149.
The motions to dismiss are denied.