71 So. 949 | La. | 1916
The question propounded by the Court of Appeal is whether the plaintiff’s petition sets forth a cause of action for a personal judgment against the defendants, J. Supple’s Sons Planting Company and J. Supple’s Sons Mercantile Company in solido, or against either of them, by th'e following allegations, viz.:
(1) That the plaintiff, Union Seed & Fertilizer Company, on the 20th of March, 1914, acquired by purchase and assignment all of the property, real and personal, of the New Orleans Acid & Fertilizer Company, including a claim for $1,500, bearing interest at 6 per cent, per annum from the 13th of April, 1911, due for fertilizers sold and delivered
(2) That the defendant mercantile company made advances to H. Hanlon’s Sons to the amount of $35,000 to make the crop of 1911, on condition that the cane should be delivered to the defendant planting company, to be by it manufactured into sugar and sold, and that the mercantile company should collect the proceeds of the sale and apply the same to the extinguishment of the debt due for the advances the mercantile company had made.
(3) That the mercantile company collected from the planting company the proceeds of the crop to the amount of $46,000, and, having reimbursed itself for the advances ($35,-000), retained the balance ($11,000) in satisfaction of unsecured debts due by M. Hanlon’s Sons, in accordance with its contract with M. Hanlon’s Sons, and to the prejudice of the plaintiff’s lien and privilege.
The Court of Appeal certifies that this suit was filed on the 5th of May, 1915, and that the plaintiff does not pray for recognition of a lien or privilege on the proceeds of the crop of 1911, nor allege that the proceeds are held by either of the defendants; the allegation being that the credit due to M. Hanlon’s Sons for the surplus of proceeds over and above the amount of advances made by the mercantile company was extinguished by ordinary debts due. by M. Hanlon’s Sons to the mercantile company. The Court of Appeal submits the questions for decision: First, whether the manufacturer, who converted the sugar cane into sugar and molasses, and, according to an agreement with the cane grower, sold the sugar and molasses, and paid the entire proceeds to the commission merchant, who had advanced an amount less than the proceeds of the crop, is personally liable for the debt due by the cane grower to the plaintiff, a third party, whose claim was secured by a lien and privilege on the crop; and, second, whether the commission merchant, by applying the surplus of the proceeds of the crop to the payment of an unsecured debt due by the cane grower, became personally liable for the debt due by the cane grower to the plaintiff for the price of the fertilizers used in the cultivation of the cane.
Our answer is that the plaintiff has not a cause of action against either of the defendants. The debt due by M. Hanlon’s Sons to the plaintiff for the fertilizers furnished and used for the cultivation of the crop of 1911 was secured by a lien or privilege on the crop and the proceeds thereof. R. O. O. § 3217. The proceeds of the crop consisted of the credit due to M. Hanlon’s ■Sons from the sale of the crop, and that credit vanished when, with the consent of M. Hanlon’s Sons, it was applied to the payment of their debts. ■
The case of Welsh v. Barrow, 3 La. Ann. 133, where an overseer enforced his lien or privilege on the proceeds of a crop of sugar cane after the plantation had been sold with the growing crop, seems to have been decided on the theory that the debt representing the proceeds of the sale of the crop was not extinguished by confusion; that “the proceeds were,” as the court said, “in the defendant’s pocket.” In Garcia v. Garcia et al., 7 La. Ann. 526, the overseer enforced his lien or privilege on the crop before it was removed from the plantation by the commission merchant, in whose favor a contract of antichresis had been made by the owner. In the cases of Hewitt v. Williams, 47 La. Ann. 742, 17 South. 269, and Hewett v. Same, 48 La. Ann. 686, 19 South. 604, where the lien of the furnisher of supplies was recognized on a quantity of cotton and the proceeds of the
The decision in National Bank of Commerce v. Sullivan, 117 La. 163, 41 South. 480, was not that one who purchased a crop thereby rendered himself personally liable for unrecorded claims for supplies advanced to make the crop. In fact, the decision cannot even be considered authority for the general proposition that the privilege of the furnish-er of supplies follows the crop in the hands, of third persons without registry of the claim; because, to that extent, the then Chief Justice and one of the Associate Justices dissented from the opinion, and another of the justices was absent, and did not take part in the decision. And in a later case attention was called to the fact that the purchaser had bought the crop while it was growing, and, by aiding the party who had raised it to “run the crop off,” had disclosed an actual knowledge of the lien and privilege affecting it. See Loeb v. Collier, 131 La. 377, 59 South. 816. In the latter case the only question presented for decision was whether a purchaser of a bale of cotton from one who had not raised it took it subject to a secret lien for necessary supplies furnished to the party who had
We have given an analysis of the foregoing decisions because they are referred to by the Court of Appeal as casting much doubt upon the question presented for decision. One who purchases agricultural products from a farmer does not thereby render himself personally liable for the debts of the farmer secured by unrecorded liens on the crop.
Under authority of article 101 of the Constitution, this case is remanded to the Court of Appeal, with the instruction to affirm the judgment of the district court, maintaining the exception of no cause of action, and rejecting the plaintiff’s demand at its cost.
