11 La. 333 | La. | 1837
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It appears that William Youngblood, was indebted to the defendant in a sum of money, to secure the payment of which, he mortgaged certain slaves by public act, on the 10th July, 1830, before the parish judge of St. Mary. The money not having been paid, the defendant obtained thereon an order of seizure and sale, whereupon the plaintiff instituted this suit, and claimed the slaves as her property.
The defendant answers by general denial, and opposes the plea of prescription in support of Youngblood’s title, and further avers, that the petitioner suffered him to introduce the slaves into the country, and thereby enabled him to obtain credit in defraud of third persons, by reason of which, the property became liable for his debts.
The cause was submitted to the court, which set aside the order of seizure and sale, and decreed the slaves to be the property of the petitioner. The defendant appealed.
At the trial of the cause, the following document was introduced in evidence, by the plaintiff, relied on by defendant as Youngblood’s title to the slaves, and the basis of the mortgage.
“ Memorandum of an agreement entered into this 3d day of July, 1829, between William Youngblood, of the one part, and Mrs. Eliza M'Burney, of the other .part. Whereas, the said Eliza M'Burney, legally possessed in her own right of sis negro slaves, named Sam, Cudjoe, Dick, Abram, Cupid, Trace and Peas, is willing to dispose of some of the said slaves to William Youngblood, upon a credit, provided she can be indemnified and secured in the ultimate payment therefor; and whereas,, said William Youngblood is willing, at an extended credit, to pay for the said negroes, the sum of
(Signed) « W. YOUNGBLOOD,
“ ELIZA W. M‘BURNEY.”
Signed and Sealed in the presence of
D. C. Campbell.
The points raised in controversy have been fully argued by counsel, and sustained by a number of authorities : never
The parties expressly stipulate, that the property in the slaves, shall abide in the plaintifF; that Youngblood should not become owner of them, nor they be liable to his contracts, until he should have paid the sum agreed on.
The contract wants some of the essential requisites of a sale ; for the plaintiff has no absolute right to demand the price, and Youngblood might at any time he thought proper, have returned the slaves, after enjoying their services gratuitously. Had he sold them, under such a title, the transfer would have certainly been void, and therefore the mortgage which may result in an alienation, must necessarily share the same fate. No illustration can make the subject plainer than the parties themselves have made it.
We, therefore,, think there is-no error in the decree of the District Court.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.