Rollins v. Watson

Citations

• 8 La. Ann. 435

Syllabus

<p>Intervenor, as agent of one Creme, a creditor of Watson, received two horses from Watson, with the understanding that Intervenor should sell them, and if the horses sold for more than Creme's claim, the surplus should be paid to Watson—if for less, Watson should make up the deficit. On an attachment against Watson, the horses were seized, and the Intervenor claimed them as his property. By the Court:—It cannot beheld that the intervenor owned the horses either by sale, or dation engagement, there being no price—no sufficient consideration to sustain such a transfer. Nor yet can he be regarded as pledgee—for the delivery not being accompanied by an act either in public form, or under private signature, did not invest him with the right of causing his debt to be satisfied by preference.</p>