Phelps v. Haring

2 La. 439

Opinion

Mathews, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This, suit was commenced by áttachment, and property or merchandise, levied on in the possession „of Reynolds, Byrne & Co. as belonging to’thp defendants in the attachment. _ Afterwards the garnishees intervened, and claimed a lieipor- privilege, on the. goods seized, under the article 3124 of:the.-"Louisiana Code." The court bfelow decided against their pretensions, Epkl they 'appealed.

In the statement Of facts, made -by the parties to this suit, it is agreed, amongst other things,' that the gocids attached in thfe possession of-the- appellants were purchased.by the defendants in attachment, on* the faith of letters of prédit- given by the garnishees, and were consigned to the latter by the pul-chasers, and that the price of them* was paid by'the consignees.- ' U, ■

■ " It* appears to júsíhát’í hé admission of these facts, brings the” appellants clearly within the proyisións-of the article of the Code by them relied on.;'.-The lien" or privilege is granted by the. first clause in.the article.. .It • commences’ in hec verba: — “Every,'consignor or commission agent ; who has made advances.oil goods consigned to him, or placed, in his hands to be sold for acéount qf the consignor, has a privilege for the amount of these advances, áte..” The, facts admitted that thegpods in .dispute were jiaid for by Reynolds, Byrne & Co.,'consigned to them by the* purchaser, and in their possession atthe time” of levying"the attachment: it is inconceivable how they can be” deprived óf the lien and privilege accorded to consignees who have made advances on property consigned. There can certainly be no advance which ought to be more privileged than that which is made in payment of the price of goods. It is not only on-them, but for them; and without which they would probably "never have become the property of the consignor, and ought, on every principle of justice and .equity, to be held as a pledge to re-imhurse the persons who have advanced'the price. ;

From the evidence it appears that-tq the value of $350 of the 'attached property" the interveners. had not. made any advance; on this, therefore, they have'no lien. ' V

It is therefore ordered, adjudged*,- and' decreed, that the Judgment of the District Court be avoided, Reversed and annulled. And-it.is further,ordered, Jidjiwjged¡ jnd; decreed, that judgment be here entered* in favor -of the a$jiqllants, with costs in both courts,'exdept as JoTthl.sum ©f.three hundred „ and fifty dollars.' ’• ; , 1