
    
      ST. MAXENT'S SYNDIC vs. SIGUR.
    
    Liquidation by a Spanish tribunal, conclusive.
    The defendant, in 1789“, purchased from St. ⅛ - . , , • Maxent, by two’separate deeds, a plantation New-Orleans, for .S 72,000, and five aegroes B" 6000-2 th$ «aráis payable at different periods. lie paid the sum of S 41,985, 75, without any declaration of his intention as . to the debt on which he wished an imputation to be made.
    East. District.
    
      June 1814.
    No interest, before judicial demand, unless by convention or on sale of land.
    After the decease of St. Maxent, his widow anc[ the syndics of his estate brought an action for a liquidation of what might remain due as the balan-on these two debts. The Spanish Tribunal before w^om ^e action was pending, by a decree of the 5th of April 1797, recognised, with the consent of all the parties, the payment of $ 41,985, 75, on the two debts, Snd referred the settlement of the balance to Carlos Ximenes, their clerk, who reported it to be 8 30014, 81.
    After wa rds the defendant obtained from the same tribunal and the Court of appeals two decrees, by which, a diminution of 8 28,751, 85, was allowed him on the price of the plantation sold to him by Sti Maxent; on the ground that the vendor had, without any right* sold to him some ground which was covered by the fortifications.
    The plaintiff having brought the present suit in the Court of the First District of this state, obtained a judgment f«»r the sum of S 2170, 80, as the balance due him, with interest from the judicial demand.
    From this judgment he appealed/
    
      Duncan, For the plaintiff.
    The Court below erred in considering the liquidation made by Ximenes as conclusive. It was only the report of a referee, . . ^ ' which before it might have any effect must llave been matured by a final decree.
    Intérést ought to have been allowed on the price of the negroes sold. Surely, the vendor cannot reasonably expect to enjoy their hire, nor the fruit Of their labour, and keep the vendor out of all the advantages he ought justly to derive from the price, after he has parted with the thing. Slaves are as productive as land, and perhaps more so.
    , Lastly, the costs of the suit, in the Spanish Court, ought not to have been allowed as a credit..
    Moreau, for the defendant.
    The District Court was correct, in taking for the basis of its judgment the liquidation of the Spanish Tribunal, which declare, in its decree of the 5th of April 1797, with the consent of the widow and creditors of the vendor, that the payments made by Sigur amount to g 41,985, 75. The creditors must therefore be bound by this decree: as to them, it is res judi-cata.
    
    ■TftE deed of sale for the negroes stipulate for no interest: norte is then due, till the judicial demand, nor perhaps from that period, for the sun* was yet unliquidated. - Slaves, are not considered, any more than cattle, horses or any other objects susceptible of being hired, as producings# a revenue, altho’ they do so by being hired out, or employed in agriculture or manufactures. While
    
      of kself produces timber and other «objects , of revenue.
   Bg the Court.

In this case the counsel for the appellant contends that the Judge below has erred, 1st. in considering the judgment of the Spanish Tribunal rendered on the 5th May 1797, by which the claims of the parties, were at. that period liquidated, as a final determination of their differences, agreeably to, the report of Ximenes, and ón which an, order of seisure was obtained for the balance.

2d’.. Ln refusing to allow interest on S 6000, - the price of certain slaves, purchased by the ap-

3d. lit allowing to Sigur, as a eredit,the costs . of the suit .which he brought for an indemnity on . account of a deficiency-of the land, and in which he recovered S 25,00,Oian-d upwards..

It being admitted that the judgment of the District Court is, in all other respects, correct;. the points above, stated are alone to be examined.

I., As to the first, we are of opinion that the Court below was right in considering the liquidation and judgment of the Spanish Tribunal conclusive between the parties; whether Lt be viewed as, an absolute decision of that Court, or a compromise- by the consent of those interested.

U, Ik relation to. the second error, insistedbn, fey fe -appelttnt’s ’-counsel -, ⅜ appears to this Court that interest can be claimed <on debts due* only from the judicial demand, except by convention or agreement, or for immoveable property, such,* -by its nature, as land and houses * for land -alone can strictly: and literally be said to bear fruits.

III. Conc essing the third error attributed to, the judgment of the District Court. We have no doubt of the correctness of the decision, ⅛ «How* ing to the appellee the costs of his suit for indemnity which were by him paid; he having prevailed in the cause.

UtoN the whole, it is the opinion of tins Court: that the judgment of the District Court ought to be affirmed.

It k, therefore, ordered t^at the same be affirmed with costs. , -  