Case Name: J. Pinckney Smith v. J. A. B. Williams.-Mrs. M. E. Dorsey, Intervenor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1870-04
Citations: 22 La. Ann. 268
Docket Number: No. 1859
Parties: J. Pinckney Smith v. J. A. B. Williams.—Mrs. M. E. Dorsey, Intervenor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 268–272

Head Matter:
No. 1859.
J. Pinckney Smith v. J. A. B. Williams.—Mrs. M. E. Dorsey, Intervenor.
A and B entered into a written contract of partnership to carry on tlie planting business in the parish of Morehouse. A, one of the partners, made a contract in his own name with Smiih & Carr, commission merchants in the city of New Orleans, to furnish supplies, etc;, for the plantation in the parish of Morehouse. Smith & Carr took the individual note of' Ar m tho name of Smith, in settlement ofc tho account. A and B settled their partnership at th i close of tlic year, and divided the cotton made on the place. B shipped her part of the cotcon to her own merchant. Smith, as holder of tho note given by A, brought suit, and sequestered the cotton of B, in tho hands of her merchant in New Orleans, alleging that he had a privilege on the cotton for tho supplies iurnished, which were used to make it B intervened in this suit, and claimed tho cotton as her individual property, and denied that it was subject to the privilege of Smith for supplies furnished. Held — That A, having contracted for tho supplies in his own name and given his individual note in settlement of tho account, no privilege existed on tho crop made in partnorshix). That the dent being against an individual, property belonging to a partnership could not be mado liable therefor. That the crop having been divided between the partners, that which belonged to audhadbeen taken liossession of and shipped by one partner; was not liable for the debts of the other partner; evon though it were shown that the supplies furnished by the creditor for which the debt was contracted was used in making the crop.
It would seem that where a plantation has been worked in partnership, no privilege exists iu favor of the commission merchant, who has made advances and furnished supplier to one of the iiartners, on the portion oí the crop which belongs to the other partners. To hold tl e interest of the other partners in the crop liable for the supplies, they must have been furnished to the partnership, and not to an individual, although he be a partner.
APPEAL from Fourth District Court of New Orleans. Théard, J.
Hays c6 New and O. F. Bemiss, for plaintiff and appellant. Breaux & Fenner, for intervenor and appellee. Defendant not represented.

Opinion:
Wtlt, J.
In 1866 the defendant, Williams, and the intervenor, Mrs. Dorsey, cultivated iu partnership a plantation, owned by the latter, in the parish of Morehouse. It was under the management and supervision of Williams. The terms of the partnership were that half the expenses of supplies and labor should be Iurnished by each partner, and that in consideration of Williams' services as manager, Mrs. Dorsey was to furnish the land free of rent.
It appears that Mrs. Dorsey furnished her part of the supplies according to contract, and a -partnership settlement was had in which Mrs. Dorsey received the twelve bales, the subject of tho present litigation, as her share of the cotton produced ou the place.
It, also, appears that Williams obtained advances from the plaintiff, J. Pinckney Smith, a cotton factor of this city, to make the crop, and that the settlement occurred between the partners without paying Smith. Mrs. Dorsey shipped the twelve bales, her share of the products of the crop, to Messrs. Payne, Huntington & Co., cotton factors of this city, for sale, and J. Pinckney Smith sued out a writ of sequestration and caused the same to be seized, at the same time suing Williams, alleging his indebtedness to him, and, also, that he had a privilege as furnisher of supplies on said consignment.
The court a qua gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, against Williams, but maintained the intervention of Mrs. Dorsey, recognizing her as the owner of the twelve bales of cotton, and .dismissed. the sequestration of plaintiff. Plaintiff has appealed.
Smith was not a party, nor was he aware of the terras of the partnership formed between Williams and Mrs. Dorsey. He simply furnished supplies to make a crop, which was .under .the supervision of his debtor, Williams. His supplies contributed to make the crop, of which the twelve bales, involved in this litigation, were part. The question is : Has ho lost the privilege which the law gave him on this cotton by tho division of tho products of tho predial estate by the partners to which he was not privy. We think not. The law is quite clear that no partition by the joint owners or partners can defeat the creditors of the partnership or destroy their privilege upon the tiling-held in common.
The privilege granted by law to factors ior the supplies furnished to produce a crop, would be vain and nugatory if parties were thus permitted to shuffle off tho rights of creditors attached to the thing produced. The plaintiff contributed to produce the crop, the common interest of the partnership, and; in our view of the law, his rights therein, are superior to that of cither of tho partners, as well after the division as before.
It appears, however, that the indebtedness of Williams occurred prior to tho act of 18G7, giving the factor a lien for money advanced as well as the supplies. Under the law existing- at the time, the factor had only a privilege for the supplies. It appears from the evidence that about half tho indebtedness of Williams was for cash advanced, for which the plaintiff, by the law then in force, had no privilege. We think that Smith's privilege should he recognized lor one-half of tho one thousand and thirty-eight dollars and four cents, and. interest, for which he had judgment against the defendant, Williams.
It is, therefore, ordered that, tho judgment appealed from be amended by recognizing- and allowing the privilege of plaintiff on the cotton seized, to the amount of five hundred and nineteen dollars and two cents, with legal interest from judicial demand ; that his sequestration to that extent be maintained, and, as thus amended, that the judgment of the court below he affirmed. It is further ordered that the intervenor pay costs of this appeal