Brashear v. The Alexandria Cooperage Company, Limited

Decision Date21 March 1898
Docket Number12,724
Citation23 So. 540,50 La.Ann. 587
PartiesALLEN M. BRASHEAR v. THE ALEXANDRIA COOPERAGE COMPANY, LIMITED; OPPOSITIONS TO RECEIVER'S ACCOUNT
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Argued February 9, 1898.

Rehearing Refused May 2, 1898.

APPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Rapides. Hunter, J.

Robert P. Hunter and H. H. White for Receiver, Appellee.

John C Blackman, for A. M. Brashear, Opponent, Appellee.

John C Ryan, for Samuel Warshauer, Opponent, Appellant.

Julius F. Ariail, for Lone Pine Saw-mill, Opponent, Appellant.

Andrews & Hakenyos, for First National Bank of Alexandria Opponent, Appellant.

OPINION

MILLER, J.

This appeal is by creditors of the defendant corporation, opponents, some of them to the account filed by the receiver of the corporation, and by others placed on the account complaining of the judgment of homologation.

It appears from the record that the defendant corporation made a mortgage on its property to raise money and provide for its debts. The mortgage notes were delivered to the directors, except one, transferred for cash, furnished by the transferee, and some of the notes given to the directors some were transferred by them. Subsequently, the corporation closed its factory, due to pecuniary embarrassment, and on the 12th of April went into the hands of a receiver. Its property was sold, and in due course of administration he filed his account. On that account law charges, amounting to six hundred and nineteen dollars, are ranked first, and to these there is no contention. Next in order of payment the receiver places labor claims, i. e., of laborers working on the factory; then creditors who furnished materials for such repairs or who repaired portions of the machinery; and the account then ranks the holders of all the mortgage notes as entitled to share the residue of the fund in the hands of the receiver. The oppositions are to the claims of the laborers, the furnishers of materials for repairs, and to the creditors claiming amounts due for such repairs, and the privilege accorded them on the account is denied, on the ground the claims were not recorded in the period designated by law. The oppositions seek to exclude from payment all the mortgage notes, on the ground they were given to the directors, and void, whether held by them or transferred. The creditor who furnished money for one of the mortgage notes is opposed, on the ground of the alleged unlawful preference given him within three months of the alleged insolvency of the corporation, and he, in turn, opposes the distribution to the holders of any of the notes given to the directors; finally, there is an opposition by a creditor left off the account, for the recognition of his debt and denying the preference claimed of payment of certain judgments duly recorded paid by directors under payments by them with subrogation to the rights of the judgment creditors.

The judgment of the lower court maintained the privileges of the laborers, that for repairs and the claims of the furnishers of material men and it maintained the mortgages asserted for all the notes; it recognized the debt of the opposing creditor left off the account, but denied him any preference, and in other respects maintained the account as filed.

The appeals are by the note holder who advanced the money to the corporation on the faith of the note and mortgage; by other note holders including the directors, and by the creditor claiming recognition of his debt.

Our law requires all privileges on immovables to be recorded. When recorded within the prescribed period, it is declared they rank previous mortgages. This period is seven days from the date of the contract or private writing evidencing the debt, or affidavit of the debt when there is no writing. Const., Art. 176; Civil Code, Art. 3186; Acts 1877, p. 59. In the case of laborers engaged in repairing machinery, or other employments requiring the services of that class, there is not usually any writing evidencing their claims. But it is against the letter and policy of our law that such privileges should be of indefinite duration. The courts must give that reasonable construction to the registry of privileges on immovables as will effect the purpose of the Constitution and laws without imposing unnecessary or burdensome conditions on the creditor. The date when the wages of the laborer becomes due, entitled to a privilege on the immovable, easily determinable by the mode of payment by the week, month or day; and the date when repairs are completed or materials furnished when privileges on immovables are asserted for such repair or supplies, in our view, are the dates from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. Succession of Cancienne
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1917
    ... ... or to become due to the Hibernia Bank & Trust Company by the ... Sugar Planters' Storage & Distributing Company ... See ... Brashear v. Alexandria Cooperage Co., 50 La.Ann ... 587, 589, 23 ... guarantor's liability is limited. It is not inconsistent ... for a contract of guaranty to ... ...
  • Standard Cotton Seed Oil Company v. Excelsior Refining Company
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1901
    ...The same is true of Belknap, Receiver, vs. Adams & Rice, 49 La.Ann. 1351, another of their cited cases. In Brashear vs. Cooperage Co., 50 La.Ann. 587, another of their authorities, the court held that a director, claiming under a mortgage executed in his favor by the corporation, could not ......
  • Eureka Homestead Soc. v. Newman
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1932
    ... ... or mortgage. Brashear v. Alexandria Cooperage Co., ... 50 La.Ann. 587, 23 So ... lending of the money by the George Vinson Company was ultra ... vires, and, second, that Thorgeson was ... ...
  • Clark v. Young
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 13, 1929
    ... ... of the properties of the Louisiana Coast Land Company, a corporation (herein called the Land Company), and as ... That claim does not belong to the limited class of unsecured claims which, as to mortgaged railroad ... Refining Co., 108 La. 74, 32 So. 221. The case of Brashear v. Cooperage Co., 50 La. Ann. 587, 23 So. 540, involved a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT