Walden v. Parrish
Supreme Court of Louisiana
having obtained a re-hearing, contended that the judgment of the lower court should be reversed in loto. The tobacco belonged to Caldwell at the time of its removal from the building leased to him by plaintiff. The testimony of Smith shows, that defendant removed it after he was aware that Caldwell had absconded as an insolvent. Defendant having sold the tobacco on a credit, had no right of revendication, (Civ.
Read the full summary
having obtained a re-hearing, contended that the judgment of the lower court should be reversed in loto. The tobacco belonged to Caldwell at the time of its removal from the building leased to him by plaintiff. The testimony of Smith shows, that defendant removed it after he was aware that Caldwell had absconded as an insolvent. Defendant having sold the tobacco on a credit, had no right of revendication, (Civ. Code, art. 3196,) and his privilege as vendor was inferior to the landlord’s. Civ. Code, arts. 2675,2679,3184, 3225, 3230. Troplong, Priv. et Hypoth. vol. 1, No. 194. Duranton, vol. 3,…
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The plaintiff is appellant from a judgment which denied him the landlord’s privilege on a quantity of tobacco in a store of his. W.e affirmed a judgment of the District Court, in *252April, 1842, as to the greatest part of the tobacco, and reversed it as to two three-quarter boxes, remanding it as to the latter. We were prevailed upon to allow the plaintiff and appellant a re-hearing, and have read with attention his objections to our first view of the case. The argument does not appear to have extended beyond that with which he had favored us on the first hearing ; and we are not satisfied that…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Worman v. MillerLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1881