Article Text
Supreme Court of Louisiana. Condensed Decisions-New ORLEANS, April 30, A claim by a vendee for damages arising from the eviction of slave by the vendor. and expenses incurred in efforts to recover him from the vendor by whom he was received and harbored, is claim ex contractu, on which an attachment will lie. Where the Sheriff takesan insuf. ficient surety on a bond for the delivery of property which has been attached. he will be adjudged to be bound to the plaintiff in attachment in the same way as the surety would have been HENRY CRANE vs. JOHN L LEWIS, SHERIFF and JOHN L. LEWIS, SHERIFF, vs JOHN C. Mc GREW, RHODES, WRIGHT & Co. WARRA TORS Appeal from the Fourth District Court of New Or leans. EUSTIS, C.J. On the 13th March, 1848, Henry Crane, residing in New Orleans, brought suit by attachment in the Fourth District Court of New Orleans against J.C. McGrew, a resident of Alabama. Under the writ of attachment the sheriff seized certain negroes belonging to McGrew which a were delivered up to him on the execution of bond to the sheriff by McGrew, with Rhodes, Wright & Co. as his securities. On the 14th June, 1848, Crane obtained judgment against McGrew for $1020 with interest from date, and a fi. fa. having been issued and returned no property found, Crane brought the present action against Lewis, sheriff, to render him liable for said judgment, on the ground that the surety taken by him on the bond was not solvent and sufficient. It appeared the plaintiff had objected to the surety and had taken a rule on the sheriff, on which the sheriff was adjudged to be bound to plaintiff in the same manner as the surety would have been bound. There was judgment below against the sheriff, and he appealed. It was assigned for error that the attachment, under which the aforesaid bond was taken, was illegally and improperly issued in a case where by law no such writ or process could issue, and the plaintiff was entitled to no benefit from the bond taken under it. The point on which this assignment was founded was that the original action of Crane against McGrew was to recover damages for a tort, and that no attachment could legally issue in such case. Prewitt vs. Carmichael An 943; Swager vs. Pierce ;" and Holmes & Swanswick vs. Captain and Owners of the steamer Air,' recently decided. It therefore became necessary to consider the nature of the original action, which was for $900, the value of a certain slave sold by McGrew, by his agent, to Crane, which slave absconded and returned to his original master (McGrew), who received and harbored him. Crane also claimed $300 for travelling expenses, in order to effect the recovery of his said slave, for his hire, counsel fees, etc. Crane alleged in his petition that he went to the residence of McGrew in Alabama, and demanded his slave, but McGrew refused to deliver him up and still retains him in his possession. Per curiam pears by this petition that the defendant, McGrew. had not only broken his contract with the plaintiff, but committed a tort in harboring and depriving him of the service of his slave but we do not un derstand that his responsibility incurred by the former is diminished or merged by an outrage, perhaps a crime being superadded to it. By the contract of sale, warranty against eviction is implied, and although it is true, as a general rule, that the right of the person evicting should have existed before the sale. yet evictions proceeding from the act of the vendor himself at all times give rise to the action of warranty. In this case the retention of the slave by the vendor was a violation of the obligation contracted by the contract of sale, prestare servum habere licere. There being sufficient allegations in the petition to sustain the action exicontractu, the Supreme Court were of opinion that the District Court would not have set aside the attachment on the grounds now presented against its legality, had they been urged on a motion to dissoly it. The evidence taken in the original case was not before the Supreme Court, but in the judgement of the District Judge, in that case, the sale considered the basis of the action, and the sale was rescinded. In the judgment below the Sheriff was adjudged to have direct recourse against McGrew, the principal in the bond, and C. R. Wright, by whom the bond was signed in the name of Rhodes, Wright & Co. as sureties. Wright has also appealed and assigned substanti lly the same grounds as the Sheriff. The judgment of the District Court was therefere affirmed, with costs. An order making absolute rule taken by a plaintiff in at tachment on the Sheriff, adjudging him to be liable to plaintiff for any subsequent judgment that might be ren dered. in the same manner as surety taken by him for the delivery of property attached would have been. is not final judgment, nor one from which an appeal will lie. HENRY CRANE vs. JOHN C. McGREW AND JOHN L. LEWIS, SHERIFF .Appeal from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans. EUSTIS, C.. Appeal by Lewis, Sheriff, from an order rendered below on a rule taken against him by plaintiff holding said Sheriff to be personally liable to plaintiff for any judgment that might be rendered therein, in the same manner as certain sureties taken by said Sheriff on bond on which property was re leased would have been liable had they been found good and sufficient. It was held that this was not a final judgment, nor one from which an appeal can be taken. Appeal dismissed with costs. The salary of a Commissioner of an insolvent bank. ap. pointed under the act of 1842, by the Board of Bank Presidents, not exempt from being rendered liable for his debts under art. 647 C. P. and art. 1987 C. C. ON MERCHANTS' BANK IN LIQUIDATION, ETC. RULE OF P. CONREY JR. vs. R. COPLAND Appeal from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans. EUSTIS, C.J Appeal by Copland from a judgment, by which a debt of $1166 66 due him. being the balance of his salary as one of the Commissioners of the late Merchants Bank, which had been allowed on a tableau of distribution as privileged debt, was held to be partially extinguished by the amount of two judgments rendered in favor of the Commissioners of said bank against Copland. It appeared Copland was appointed one of the three Commissioners under the act of 1842, having been appointed by the Board of Bank Presidents. Per curiam It is evident that in the article of the Civil Code alluded to, (art. 1987, the word office meant a public office the French text is conclusive as to its meaning The expressions salaries of office in the 647th art. C P. do not change that sense, and the French text, salaires d'office, is still more restrictive, and indicates a public office and nothing else. Merlin, Rep. verbo office: Domat, Droit Public, liv. 2, tit. 1, sec. 1. Judgment affirmed with costs. WM. ROBERTSON, TRUSTEE vs. MILES Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson EUSTIS, C. J. Judgment reversed, and judgment rendered for plaintiff for $1000, with interest from March 24, 1842, costs of protest and costs in both courts. BROWN AND LAND vs. ELEONORE BOYLAN, AnMINISTRATRIX THE ESTATE OF THOMAS BoyLAN Appeal from the Second District Court of New Orleans. EUSTIS, C. J. Judgment annulled and case remanded for a new trial, plaintiff and appellees to pay the costs of appeal. CAMILLE ZERINGUE vs. LAUNSEL WHITE Appeal from the Fifth District Court of New Or leans. ROST, J Action by plaintiff in relation to the boundary lines between her land, under I Spanish grant, at the ridge of the Grande Chênière. and defendant's land. Judgment below affirmed with costs. THE SELKIRK AMERICAN SETTLEMENT.-The
