Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold

80 So. 214, 144 La. 100, 1918 La. LEXIS 1704
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedNovember 4, 1918
DocketNo. 21601
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 80 So. 214 (Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, 80 So. 214, 144 La. 100, 1918 La. LEXIS 1704 (La. 1918).

Opinion

LECHE, J.

The Rosedale plantation, situated in the parish of Assumption, belonging at the time to the Rosedale Planting & Manufacturing Company, was, on the 3d day of Eebruary, 1912, seized under a writ of seizure and sale issued in the matter of Emil Sundberry v. Chauííe Bros., and was advertised to be sold at public auction on March 23, 1912. The crop of sugar cane grown on said plantation during the year 1911, as well as other sugar cane purchased during that year by the owners of the plantation, had been harvested and ground and most of the proceeds sold at the time the seizure was made, but there was still left in the sugar factory a quantity of masse cuite, the value of which it was then very difficult if not impossible to estimate, but believed by some of the parties in interest to be worth approximately $25,000.

On March 23, 1912, the day upon which the sale was advertised to take place, the following claims were due and enforceable upon the property:

Emil Sundberry, mortgage note..'. $32,000 00
Emil Sundberry, mortgage note ... 18,000 00
Bank of Napoleonville, mortgage note.......................... 14,000 00
Emil Sundberry, mortgage note.... 7,500 00
Knobloch & Rainold, mortgage and crop lien...................... 49,148 09
Tom Alexander and others, laborers, crop lien...................... 7,451 22
A. K. Delaune, lien on masse cuite 12,171 39
T. J. & J. O. Delaune, lien on masse cuite ......................... 7,990 43
Bancroft, Ross & Sinclair Company, lien on machinery in sugar-house ........................ 13,265 00

The mortgages held by Sundberry and the Bank of Napoleonville amounted to $71,500. Next in rank was the mortgage of Knobloch & Rainold amounting to $49,148.09. The liens and privileges on the masse cuite, consisting of laborers’ wages $7,451.22, A. K. Delaune, cane seller, $12,171.39, T. J. & J. O. Delaune cane sellers, $7,990.43, and Knobloch & Rainold, furnishers of supplies, $49,148.09, aggregated $68,776.70.

The lien and privilege of Bancroft, Ross & Sinclair Company on the sugar mill and fixtures which were ordered appraised and sold separately amounted to $13,265.

Such was, sustantially, the situation on March 23d, when all the parties in interest, with a view of protecting their respective claims, met in Napoleonville, where the sale was to take place. Every one felt that the property might not realize enough to pay all the claims with which it was incumbered. The Bank of Napoleonville held a claim of $5,000 against T. J. & J. O. Delaune for advances, and the latter apparently agreed to let the bank assert its claim pro tanto on their share of whatever they might be able to realize out of their privilege on the masse cuite. Mr. Sundberry, plaintiff in executory process, was anxious to protect the claims of the bank, of which he was president. The [103]*103masse cuite, if sold separately from the plantation and adjudicated to any one not purchasing the plantation, would he worth little, because its removal to another factory to be worked into second and third sugars would entail expense out of proportion to its undetermined value.

Under these trying circumstances, with probable loss staring them in the face, the parties after much discussion, in order to save costs and expense and with a view of realizing to the best advantage out of the property to be sold, finally reached an agreement and signed a written instrument substantially to the following effect:

1. Emil Sundberry to bid in the Rosedale plantation.

2. Sundberry to sell the plantation to a new corporation to be organized as the Bertie Sugar Company, Limited; the said company to issue, as a consideration in said sale, vendor’s lien and mortgage notes in favor of said Sundberry and the Bank of Napoleon-ville in the same amount and ranking in order, as the notes then held by them.

3. Knobloch & Rainold to be given by the Bertie Sugar Company a mortgage for the entire amount of their claim against the Rosedale Planting & Manufacturing Company, Limited, less $5,000 to be paid on account, as hereinafter provided, said mortgage however to be inferior in rank to that to be given to Sundberry and to the Bank of Napoleonville.

The next clause of the agreement is worded as follows:

(4) “That the masse cuite and molasses on the Rosedale plantation shall be sold by public sale as soon as possible, and bought in by Knobloch & Rainold, at not over $25,000.00, the masse cuite, etc., to be worked up into second sugars and other products as soon as possible to do so to the best advantage, and sold on the open market, and out of the net proceeds thereof, are to be paid, first, the claims of all laborers, assigns or subrogees, against the Rosedale plantation, (2) five thousand dollars to Knobloch & Rainold, on their hereinbefore described debt; (3) the claims of Alcee Delaune and of the Bank of Napoleonville as set out in their respective suits against the Rosedale Company, to be paid pro rata as the money is realized, and any balance remaining after applying all of said proceeds as afore-, said, to be paid by a draft of said Bertie Sugar Company, Ltd., on Knobloch & Rainold.
“In case of the loss of the aforesaid masse cuite, sugar and molasses by fire, the insurance money shall stand in place of said masse cuite, and be divided as herein provided for the net proceeds of the sale of said products, without any obligation on the part of Knobloch & Rain-old to pay any balance due to Alcee Delaune, or the Bank of Napoleonville.”

Then follow the signatures of all the parties in interest.

The agreement shows upon its face that it was drawn up hurriedly, for there is no stipulation binding the Bertie Sugar Company, Limited^ the corporation to be organized, to purchase the plantation from Mr. Sundberry; nor is it reasonable that Knob-loch & Rainold should buy the masse cuite at not over $25,000, work it into sugar, sell the sugar, which would then have belonged to them, and distribute the proceeds of their own sugar among the laborers, Alcee Delaune, and the Bank of Napoleonville. But these discrepancies do not affect the matters at issue in this case. The agreement of sale was carried out by the Bertie Sugar Company, Limited, and the masse cuite, after being worked into sugar, was turned over and shipped to Knobloch & Rainold for sale on the New Orleans market, as evidently intended by all the parties.

The proceeds of the masse cuite were sold in open market and realized, gross, $18,724,41, and, after deducting cost of manufacture, $2,093.90, netted for distribution $16,630.51. Knobloch & Rainold then proceeded to distribute this amount, according to their understanding of the • written agreement, as follows:

[105]*105Tom Alexander and others, laborers’ claim $7,451.22 and $85.70 interest thereon............... $ 7,536 92
Knobloch & Rainold.............. 5,000 00
Alcee Delaune (proportionate share) 2,901 63
Bank of Napoleonville (proportionate share) ........................ 1,191 96

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rutherford v. Impson
366 So. 2d 944 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)
Howard L. Makofsky, Jr. v. Raymond C. Cunningham, II
576 F.2d 1223 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
Renaudin v. Zapata Development Corporation
339 So. 2d 942 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1977)
RAY McDERMOTT AND COMPANY v. VESSEL MORNING STAR
431 F.2d 714 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
J. Ray McDermott & Co. v. The Vessel Morning Star
431 F.2d 714 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
Dahl v. National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans
196 So. 2d 578 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1967)
National Co. v. Harper Aviation, Inc.
146 So. 2d 13 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1962)
Marcann Outdoor, Inc. v. Hargrove
140 So. 2d 815 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1962)
Blackwell v. Nagy
122 So. 2d 903 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1960)
Elkins v. Townsend
182 F. Supp. 861 (W.D. Louisiana, 1960)
Johnson v. Capital City Ford Company
85 So. 2d 75 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1955)
Dupre v. Dupre
72 So. 2d 589 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1954)
Rosenthal v. Gauthier
69 So. 2d 367 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1953)
Gulf Refining Co. v. Garrett
25 So. 2d 329 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1945)
Sibley v. Lester
8 So. 2d 320 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1942)
Snelling v. Adair
199 So. 782 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1940)
Maison Blanche Co. v. Gilbride
164 So. 813 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1935)
Gulf Motor Lines, Inc. v. European Agencies, Inc.
155 So. 523 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)
McGuire v. Nelson Bros.
148 So. 56 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1933)
Trcka v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co.
141 So. 81 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 So. 214, 144 La. 100, 1918 La. LEXIS 1704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-napoleonville-v-knobloch-rainold-la-1918.