Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Deaver v. . Rice

20 N.C. 567

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Date: 1838-12-05
Topic: general

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Deaver v. . Rice. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 3 opinions

DEAVERv. RICE,20 N.C. 567(1839)

THOMAS S. DEAVER v. JOSEPH M. RICE, ADMR. OF JOHN A. SORRELL.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December Term, 1838.

Landlord's Lien on Crop.

1. A landlord has no lien in this State on the crop of his tenant for his rent, though it may be reserved in kind, or in a part of the crop. Whether such agreement is contained in, or is out of, the lease, the lessor stands upon no better footing than the other creditors of the lessee.

2. Upon a lease for a year, the lessee acquires an estate in possession in severalty during the term, so that the crop growing or standing on the land is entirely his property; and if an execution in favor of a third person be issued against the tenant during the year, it will bind the crop from histeste, so that he cannot afterwards sell it to another, or assign it, or any part of it, to his landlord in payment of his rent.

THIS was an action trespassvi et armis, tried at Buncombe, on the last circuit, before his Honor,Judge Pearson, when the case appeared to be as follows:Page 447

The plaintiff leased a tract of land to one Ruth for the term of one year, to wit, the year 1836; and the lessee, instead of a money rent, agreed to give the lessor one-third of the grain made on (568) the land, if he worked it well; if not, then five hundred bushels of corn. The lessee entered and made a crop on the land. At July Term, 1836, of Buncombe County Court, a judgment was obtained against the lessee, and an execution issued tested of the same term; and in October following, the sheriff levied the same on a filed of corn standing on the demised premises, as the lessee's property, and sold the same, when the defendant's intestate became the purchaser. Before this levy and sale, to wit, in the month of August in the same year, the lessor and lessee had come to an agreement that the lessor should take the corn standing in this field for his rent. The defendant's intestate, after his purchase, entered into the field, gathered the corn and carried away two-thirds of it, for which the plaintiff brought this action.

His Honor charged the jury, first, that when the rent was reserved in kind, or in a part of the crop, the law gave the landlord a lien upon the crop in preference to all other creditors. Secondly, that the allotment to the plaintiff of the corn in this particular field, if donebona fide, was valid, and vested the title to the same in the plaintiff, the lessor, notwithstanding thetesteof the execution was before the said agreement. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

Clingman for defendant.No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.

DANIEL, J., after stating the case as above, proceeded as follows:

As to the first branch of the judge's charge, we must confess that we are unacquainted with any law of this State which gives to the landlord a lien on the crop of his tenant where the rent, instead of money, is agreed by the parties to be paid in kind or in a part of the crop. The lessor, whether such an agreement is contained in or is out of the lease, stands upon no better footing than the other creditors of the lessee; he has no lien or any other particular privileges that we are aware of. The English law of distress and sale for rent by the landlord has never been in use and practice in this State. Such an agreement is but a chose in action. Secondly, we are of the opinion that Ruth, by virtue (569) of the lease to him, had an estate in possession in severalty during the term, and the plaintiff had the reversion. The crop growing or standing on the land was entirely the lessee's property at thetesteof the execution. This case is not like that ofS. v. Jones, 2 Dev. Bat., 360. In that case, the owner of the land had never made a lease, andPage 448the entire property in the staves was in the owner of the land on which grew the timber out of which the staves were made. Here there was a lease, and the term and the entire crop on the land was in the lessee. The plaintiff's claim, either for the one-third of the grain which should be made on the land, or the corn standing in the particular field, rested only in agreement or contract. There being no partition or separation of any portion to the plaintiff out of the general mass of the crop before thetesteof the execution, the whole crop belonged in law to the lessee at that period, and the execution bound the property in the hands of Ruth, and all others claiming under him, from theteste. Den on dem. of Stamps v.Irwin, 2 Hawks, 232;Gilkey v. Dickerson, 2 Hawks, 341;Bickerdike v.Arnold, 3 Hawks, 296. The plaintiff claims under Ruth, by an agreement made after thetesteof the execution. The plaintiff, although the landlord, was bound by the execution against his tenant.

We are of the opinion that the judge erred in his charge to the jury on both points raised in the cause.

The judgment must be set aside and a new trial granted.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed.Cited: Ross v. Swaringer,31 N.C. 483;Biggs v. Ferrell,34 N.C. 3;Harrison v. Ricks,71 N.C. 11;Haywood v. Rogers,73 N.C. 321;Howlandv. Forlaw,108 N.C. 569.Dist.: Gordon v. Armstrong,27 N.C. 410;Kornegay v. Collier,65 N.C. 72.

NOTE. — This is otherwise now by statute, The Code, sec. 1754.

(570)