-`  FEDERAL REPORTER.
Warm, v; Tnonrson and others, Intervenors}
(G'£rcuz't Court, E. D. Louisiana. January 20, 1885.)
Innovssmns BY DFSTlNATION—MORTGAGE.
Machinery attached to a plantation, and used for plantation purposes, though
included in a mortgage, if purchased and removed, even during the pendency
of a suit to enforce the mort gage, were withdrawn from the operation of the
mortgage. When machinery is removed from a plantation, it again becomes
` a movable, and as such could not be susceptible of mortgage, even if the pur-
chaser was in had faith;` that is, purchased with knowledge of the mortgage.
Ortzzensf Bank v. Knapp, 22 La. Ann. 117.
t At Law. Un trial ot interventions.
C. B. Singleton, R. H. Browne, and B. F. Choate, for plaintiff.
° Joseph P. Horner and Francis W. Baker, for intervenors.
i Brmnnos, J. The question submitted is upon the intervention.
Defendant executed a mortgage to plaintiff of a plantation. At the
time of the execution of the mortgage, the mules and machinery in
question were upon the plantation, and in use in connection with it
for the purpose of working it. Subsequently, and with knowledge of
the mortgagee, the intervenors purchased these articles; they were sev-
ered from the plantation, and were in the possession of intervenors
when the proceedings to foreclose the mortgage were instituted. That
mules and machinery so situated were by destination immovables, is
determined by Civil Code La. art. 468.
The case of Citizen! Bank v. Knapp, 22 La. Ann. 117, holds that
machinery attached to a plantation and used for plantation purposes,
though included in a mortgage, if purchased and removed, even dur-
ing the pendency of a suit to enforce the mortgage, were withdrawn
from the operation of the mortgage. The ground upon which the
conclusion of the court is placed, is that, when detached from the su-
gar-house and removed from the plantation, the machinery became
r again a movable, and as such could not be susceptible of mortgage;
that this would be true even if the purchasers was in bad faith; that
is, purchased with knowledge of the mortgage.
A strong argument, both at the trial and subsequently by brief,
was made in favor of the destination which the law had given to the
_ mules and machinery, continuing so long as the persons dealing with
the property knew of the mortgage. But in cases not involving any
provision of the constitution of the United States, and not springing
out of negotiable paper, (which last are ranked among causes gov-
ernedby the general law-merchant and not by thelocal law,) the con-
struction given by the court of last resort of a state, and not qualified
by any subsequent decision, as to the meaning of a statute, is a part
of the statute, and is binding upon the federal courts.
ilteportcd by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.