In re Reis

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana

In re Reis

20 F. Cas. 510, 3 Woods 18

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 15, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 20 F. Cas. 510 (In re Reis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Reis, 20 F. Cas. 510, 3 Woods 18 (circtdla 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

If Pohlman has any lien at all, it is the elder and therefore the better one. The controversy turns upon the question whether Pohlman has any lien at all upon the fund. And this presents the question whether the lieu of the landlord upon the goods of his tenant remains after the goods are destroyed by fire and then attaches to the insurance money. The jurisprudence of this state does not sanction such an idea. The lien and privilege is lost by the destruction of the property. Civ. Code, art. 3277; Thayer v. Goodale, 4 La. 221; Eymar v. Lawrence, 8 La. 42; Slark v. Broom, 7 La. Ann. 337. Such is also the rule of the French law. 4 Trop. Priv. & Mort. Nos. 889, 890 ; 20 Duranton, No. 328.

As Pohlman has lost his privilege by reason of the destruction of the property on which it rested, the claim of Berthel to priority of payment must be allowed. Decree of the district court affirmed.

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

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

If Pohlman has any lien at all, it is the elder and therefore the better one. The controversy turns upon the question whether Pohlman has any lien at all upon the fund. And this presents the question whether the lieu of the landlord upon the goods of his tenant remains after the goods are destroyed by fire and then attaches to the insurance money. The jurisprudence of this state does not sanction such an idea. The lien and privilege is lost by the destruction of the property. Civ. Code, art. 3277; Thayer v. Goodale, 4 La. 221; Eymar v. Lawrence, 8 La. 42; Slark v. Broom, 7 La. Ann. 337. Such is also the rule of the French law. 4 Trop. Priv. & Mort. Nos. 889, 890 ; 20 Duranton, No. 328.

As Pohlman has lost his privilege by reason of the destruction of the property on which it rested, the claim of Berthel to priority of payment must be allowed. Decree of the district court affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F. Cas. 510, 3 Woods 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-reis-circtdla-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack