Laporte v. Libby
| Decision Date | 24 April 1905 |
| Docket Number | 15,637 |
| Citation | 114 La. 570,38 So. 457 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | LAPORTE v. LIBBY et al |
Case Certified from Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.
Action by Theodore Laporte against George H. Libby and others. Judgment for defendants, and question certified from the Court of Appeal. Question answered.
Greene & Greene, for plaintiff.
Hampden Story and William Benjamin White, for defendants.
Pursuant to article 101 of the Constitution of 1898 the judges of the Court of Appeal have certified to this court a question of law arising in the above-entitled cause pending before them, and desire the instruction of this court thereon.
Plaintiff as the lessor of defendant, seized for rent a certain steam thresher and appurtenances, which had been purchased partly on a credit by defendant from third opponents, who intervened, and, under article 3259 of the Civil Code claimed to be paid by preference over the plaintiff out of the proceeds of the sale of said machinery.
Defendants were rice planters on a large scale, and purchased the thresher for the purpose of preparing their rice crop for the market, and it was used during the year 1903 on the farm leased from plaintiff. After threshing their own crop of rice, defendants used the machine for threshing for other persons living in the vicinity. The use of such or similar threshing machinery is absolutely essential in handling and preparing rice crops for market.
On this state of facts, the judges of the Court of Appeal propound the following questions, viz.:
(1) Whether such threshing machinery is a "farming utensil," in the sense of the term as used in article 3259 of the Civil Code?
(2) Whether the lessor's or vendor's privilege should prevail?
The two articles of the Civil Code which it is necessary to consider in the determination of the above questions read as follows, viz.:
These articles are on the same subject-matter, and should be so interpreted as to make their provisions harmonize, if it can be done without doing violence to the terms of either of them. Childers v. Johnson, 6 La.Ann. 634; Gee v. Thompson, 11 La.Ann. 657. Effect can be given to both, by considering article 3259 as an exception to the general rule laid down in article 3263. The one is special and the other general.
"Lex generalis non derogat speciali." Osthoff v. Flotte, 48 La.Ann. 1094, 20 So. 282; State ex rel. Adams v. Rightor, 49 La.Ann. 1017, 22 So. 195.
The only debatable question in the case is whether a steam thresher falls within the category of farming utensils or implements. The statement of facts concedes that such machinery is absolutely essential to the harvesting of a crop of rice. In the evolution of agriculture, machinery has taken the place not only of former implements, but of much of the labor once necessary to manipulate the same.
The equity is the same whether a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Massey
...Binzel v. Grogan, 67 Wis. 147, 29 N.W. 895; Simons v. Lovell, 54 Tenn. 510; Lahn & Co. v. Carr, 120 La. 797, 45 So. 707; Laporte v. Libby, 114 La. 570, 38 So. 457; Eckman v. Poor, 38 Colo. 200, 87 P. Stemmer v. Insurance Co., 33 Ore. 65, 49 P. 588, 53 P. 498; Estate of Klemp, 119 Cal. 41, 6......
- State v. Dykes
-
Murphy v. Cont'l Ins. Co.
...will embrace everything * * * ‘for household purposes or applicable to the trade to which the term has reference.’ ” In Laporte v. Libby, 114 La. 570, 38 South. 457, the court expressed the same view: “The word ‘utensils' more especially means an implement or vessel for domestic or farming ......
-
Lahn & Co. v. Carr
...engine was a farming utensil, in the sense of article 3259, Civ. Code, and, under the ruling of the court in the case of Laporte v. Libby, 114 La. 570, 38 So. 457, in course of their opinion, our predecessors said: 'The sole remaining question to be decided is whether a traction machine, pe......