189 So. 461 | La. Ct. App. | 1939
On December 2, 1937, plaintiff filed his petition alleging that the defendant was indebted to him on one certain promissory note, dated May 8, 1937, due six months after date, in the principal sum of $250 and bearing eight per cent per annum interest from maturity; that the said note represented the value of moneys, goods and supplies advanced by plaintiff to assist defendant in making his crop of 1937 and was secured by a crop lien given under the provisions of Act No.
On January 17, 1938, a judgment by default was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and the sequestered rice was duly advertised and sold by the sheriff for the sum of $505.
After the judgment was rendered, but prior to the sheriff's sale, one C.E. LeBoeuf filed a petition of intervention and third opposition, claiming by preference the sum of $199.25 with legal interest from judicial demand for labor performed by him in raising and harvesting the said rice crop. After the sheriff's sale, but before distribution of the proceeds, Eli Jones filed a petition of intervention, setting forth a preferred claim in the sum of $83 plus legal interest from judicial demand for labor performed by him in the making of the said rice crop; and on the same day, J.S. Brannon filed his petition of intervention, claiming a preference on the proceeds from the sale of the rice, on the ground that defendant was indebted to him in the sum of $224.50, represented by 50 sacks of rice seed of the value of $182.50 furnished by him to defendant in the planting of the crop, and $52 advanced by him in the payment of a note of defendant, which he had endorsed, and the proceeds from which had been used by defendant in paying labor in the making of the crop, less a credit of $10.
By agreement of all the parties, the claims of intervenors LeBoeuf and Jones for labor were recognized as having preference over the claims of plaintiff and intervenor Brannon, and judgment was accordingly rendered decreeing the payment of these two claims out of the proceeds from the sale of the rice, and they are no longer an issue in the case.
The plaintiff filed an exception of no cause of action to the intervention of Brannon, which exception was first sustained by the trial judge, but on rehearing was overruled.
Thereafter, issue was joined on Brannon's intervention, and an agreement as to the facts involved was entered into by counsel as follows: It was agreed that the judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $250 plus 8% interest from November 8, 1937, was correct as to amount and was for materials furnished in the planting and harvesting of the rice crop. It was further agreed that intervenor *462 Brannon furnished rice seed to defendant, for the planting of the crop, of a total value of $182.50, subject to a credit of $10 for pasture stubble furnished by defendant to Brannon; and that defendant borrowed on his note the sum of $50 which he used in the payment of labor in making the crop, and that Brannon, who was an endorser on defendant's note, paid the principal of $50 due thereon plus $2 for interest.
The district court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $250 with 8% interest per annum from November 8, 1937, and in favor of intervenor Brannon in the sum of $224.50 with 5% interest from date of judicial demand (said judgment in favor of Brannon being in rem only against the funds derived from the sale), and decreed that the entire claim of plaintiff and $172.50 of the claim of Brannon (representing the amount of rice seed furnished less the credit of $10) be paid proratably out of the proceeds from the sale of the rice; the lien and privilege of Brannon as furnisher of the rice seed being recognized as equal to the lien and privilege of plaintiff under his duly recorded crop lien. The plaintiff alone has appealed.
As the judgment did not recognize the claim of Brannon for $50 and interest paid by him as being of equal rank with the claim of plaintiff, and as Brannon has not appealed, nor answered the appeal, asking for an amendment of the judgment in this respect, the only question before this court is the rank or preference of plaintiff's claim under his recorded crop lien and that of Brannon for rice seed furnished defendant.
The claim of Brannon for a preference is based on Civil Code, Article
The question herein is the rank of the privilege on the crop and does not concern the question of the preservation of the privilege. The provision of the Constitution, cited by the intervenor, providing that privileges on movables shall exist without registration, has no reference to the laws fixing the rank of privileges on movables. The privilege on the crop given the furnisher of supplies under Article
Intervenor Brannon relies on the decision in Southern Grocer Company v. Adams,
Intervenor contends that the Maxwell-Yerger case is not applicable herein, since it was decided prior to the adoption of the provision of the Constitution of 1921 (Art. 19, § 19) with reference to the preservation of privileges, but, as stated hereinabove, the Constitutional provision does not have reference to the ranking of privileges, and, moreover, the same provision was contained in the Constitution of 1898 which was in effect at the time of the decision in the Maxwell-Yerger case. Furthermore, the ruling in Maxwell-Yerger v. Rogan was approved in Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation v. Elston, Prince McDade, La.App.,
The cases of Purity Feed Mills Co. v. Moore,
For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be amended by recognizing plaintiff's claim in priority over intervenor Brannon's claim, with costs, and as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed.