Case Name: PALMER vs. HAYNES AND CO.-SYNDICS OF FRANKLIN INTERVENING
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1831-05
Citations: 2 La. 370
Docket Number: 
Parties: PALMER vs. HAYNES AND CO.—SYNDICS OF FRANKLIN INTERVENING.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 370–371

Head Matter:
PALMER vs. HAYNES AND CO.—SYNDICS OF FRANKLIN INTERVENING.
Eastern District,
May 1831
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE FIRST DISTRICT,
One who receives a note as a broker cannot claim any property under it as a creditor of the bailor.
One who receives a note as a broker cannot claim any property, under it as’.creditor of the bailor.
The plaintiff was a broker, and in that capacity received from one Franklin, a note, to be discounted. He refused, when called on, to deliver up the note; but. offered, in discharge of it, other notes which he held of Franklin. After the failure of Franklin, suit was instituted against the makers of the note; in which the syndics of Franklin intervened, and claimed the proceeds, alleging that the note formed part of the effects surrendered by Franklin to his creditors, and came into the possession of the plaintiff by false and fraudulent pretences. There was judgment for the intervening party; and the plaintiff appealed.
Carleton and Lockett for appellant.
Pierce and M’ Caleb for appellees.

Opinion:
Porter, J.
delivered the opinion of the court:
Suit is brought against the defendants, on their promissory note. The interveners claim property in the instrument sued on, alleging it came into the possession of the plaintiff by false and fraudulent pretences.
The evidence shews the plaintiff acted in the capacity of a broker; that the note was handed to him by an agent of the insolvent, previous to his failure, to be discounted; that he received it for that purpose, and having once got it into his possession, he refused to deliver the proceeds, and offered in discharge of it, other obligations of the insolvent debtor, which had been' assigned to him.
There was judgment in favor of the interveners in the court of the first instance, and the plaintiff appealed. The cause as between them and the defendants, was continued.
We think the court did not err. The note was delivered to the plaintiff in his character of broker, to be discounted; and his receiving it as such, made him the agent of the m- . tt* i , . . solvent. His subsequent attempt to turn this transaction into a contract, by which he acquired a right in himself to the bill, is very unjustifiable; it is as immoral as it is illegal, A late statute of the British parliament makes acts similar to that of the plaintiff, a misdemeanor punishable with transportation, not exceeding fourteen years. It would seem that a legislation of the same kind would not be without its utility in this state. — Chitty on Bills, Ed. 1830. Page 114.
There is no prayer for damages, or we should have condemned the plaintiff to pay ten per centum on the amount in dispute, for bringing a case before the court in which he could have had no other object, but to delay the parties entitled to the note from receiving its proceeds.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.