Saloy v. Bloch
Annotate this Case
136 U.S. 338 (1890)
U.S. Supreme Court
Saloy v. Bloch, 136 U.S. 338 (1890)
Saloy v. Bloch
Argued December 18-19, 1889
Decided May 23, 1890
136 U.S. 338
Saloy, being the owner of a plantation in Louisiana, leased it to P. B. Dragon and Athanase Dragon. The Dragons arranged with Bloch to furnish them with goods, supplies and moneys necessary to carry on the plantation, for which he was to have a factor's lien or privilege on the crops, which were also to be consigned to him for sale. Saloy contracted before the same notary as follows:
"And here appeared and intervened herein Bertrand Saloy, who, after having read and taken cognizance of what is hereinbefore written, declared that he consents and agrees that his claim and demands as lessor of the aforesaid 'Monsecours Plantation' shall be subordinate and inferior in rank to the claims and privileges of said Bloch as the furnisher of supplies or for advances furnished under this contract, and that said Bloch shall be reimbursed from the crops of 1883 made on said place the full amount of his advances hereunder without regard and in preference to the demands of said Saloy for the rental of said plantation, provided however that three hundred and fifty sacks of seed rice shall remain or be left on said plantation out of the crop of this year for the purposes thereof for the year 1884."
(1) That under the laws of Louisiana, the privilege or lien of the landlord over the crops of the tenant was superior to that of the factor.
(2) That the effect of Saloy's agreement was only the waiver of that priority, and that it did not commit him in any degree to the fulfillment by the Dragons of their agreements with Bloch.
(3) That if Saloy asserted his privilege by taking possession of the
crops (which he did), he thereby became liable to account to Block, and that this liability could be enforced by a suit in equity, to which the Dragons would be necessary parties.
(4) But that he was not liable therefor to Block in an action at law, to which the Dragons were not parties.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.