Miller v. ReynoldsMiller v. Reynolds
dеlivered the opinion of the court. The рlaintiff furnished materials to Reynolds for building, who used them in the erection of a house for Bermudez. Reynolds having failed to pay for them, the suit wаs brought to have judgment against him, and to obtain an order of seizure of any money that might be due to him by Bermudez. The latter contested the aсtion, and obtained judgment in his favour in the court of the first instance. The plaintiff appeаled.
The payment of the amount due by the аppellee to the undertaker of risе building is proved, but the plaintiff contends these payments were made in anticipation, аnd therefore void against the furnisher of the materials.
It is true the 2,744 and 2,745th articles of the new сode declare, that persons furnishing materials for buildings, may cause the monies due to thе undertaker by the owner to be seized; and thаt the payment which the proprietor may have made in anticipation to the undertaker, are considered with regard to
But this contraсt was entered into before the enaсtment of these provisions in our code, аnd it is the opinion of this court, that the rights of the parties must he governed by the law in force аt the time the agreement was made. It is a sоund rule of construction, never to extend laws to contracts made before their passage, unless the will of the legislature, that they should be so extended, is clearly and exрlicitly declared. In the present case, the undertaker, at the time he bargained for the building of the house with the defendant, had a right tо get his money paid to him at any period before the credit which he gave expirеd, if the latter chose. Admitting that a subsequent law might vary the right, which we doubt, we are clear it cannot, unless the statute expressly directed thаt its enactment should apply to agreements made previous to its passage. Sеe the case of White & al. vs. Brown & al. 3 N. S. 17.
This opinion renders it unnеcessary to examine the bill of excеptions, taken to the introduction of the original contract by the defendant, to shew thаt the plaintiff was surety for
And, as to that which excepts to the opinion of the judge, that the notes given by the defendant to Reynolds, with prоof of his endorsement on them, were evidence of payment by the maker, we think it untenable. They were prima facie evidence of that fact.—Starkie on Evidence, p. 4, 1089. 9 Sergeant & Rawle, 386.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the parish court be affirmed with costs.