12 FEDERAL BEPOBTEB•
cash. On the following day the cotton was delivered to the said defendant,
through the warehouseman, where the same was stored. On the sixth of
June the said defendants aid upon this purchase the sum of $1,800, which
they derived by or from ziilvances made by intervenors on bill of lading for
the cotton , leaving unpaid the balance of the price of the cotton, viz., the sum
of $10,865.25. The cotton was an agricultural product of the state of Louisi-
ana, and the sale was made to the defendants by the plaintiffs in the city of
New Orleans. On the sixth of June all of the cotton was either laden on
hoard or delivered in the possession of the steam-ship Counsellor, bound for
Liverpool, and bills of lading in regular form were on that day issued for said
cotton by the master of said steam-ship, and were on the same day transferred
by the usual indorsement to the intervenors, Brown Bros. &C0., who paid for
the same the sum of £2,680, in the currency of the United States $13,400, the
full value of the cotton. On June 7th the plaintiffs instituted this suit,
claiming a vendor’s lien for the unpaid balance of the price of the cotton,
and on the same day sequestered the cotton and took it out of the possession
of the master of the said steam-ship Counsellor, who held the same for ship-
ment, having given the said bills of lading therefor.
L As the conclusions of law, drawn from these facts, the court Ends:
i (1) That the acts of 1868, No. 150, and of 1876, No. 72, mean that the bills
of lading and warehouse receipts for property shipped or warehoused shall
fully represent the property, so that a transfer of those paper titles shall vest
in the transferee the property as fully as a sale accompanied by a delivery of
the property itself. (2) That the acts of 1854 and 1855, now found in Civil
Code, art. 3227, since they give the right to the vendor to seize the thing
sold in whatsoever hands or place they may be found, and enforce his lien
for the price, which the statute declares shall have preference over all other
claims, operates as well against those who hold under purchase through bills
of lading as well as by transfer and actual delivery. (3) That the plaintiffs’
claim must prevail over that of the intervenors’.
Therefore the plaintiffs must have judgment enforcing their rights
upon the cotton to the extent of the unpaid price. To that extent
the intervenors’°claim is dismissed; beyond that, allowed. Plaintiffs
must have judgment against the defendant for all costs prior to the
intervention, and all costs subsequent to the intervention must be paid
y out of the cotton sequestered.
—(Emtract_from Act N 0. 150 of the Legislature of Louisiana of 1868. Referred
to Above.)
Sec. 6. Be it further enacted, etc., that cotton—press receipt given for any
goods, wares, merchandise, grain, flour, or other produce or commodity stored
or deposited with any cotton-press, wharilnger, or other person, or any bill of
lading given by any forwarder, boat, vessel, railroad, transportation or trans-
fer company, may be transferred by indorsement therein, and any person to
whom the same may be transferred shall be deemed and taken tobe the owner
of the goods, wares, merchandise, grain, flour, or other produce, or commod-
ity therein specified, so far as t0 give validity to any pledge, lien, or transfer
made or created by such person or persons; but no property shall be delivered,
except on surrender and cancellation of said original receipt, or bill of lading.
of the indorsement of such delivery thereon. In case of partial delivery, all
cotton-press receipts, or bills of lading, however, which shall have the words
"not negotiable" plainly written or stamped on the face thereof shall be ex-
empt from the provisions of this section.