Case ID: miss_112/html/0077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SteveNS, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maris v. Levy et al.
    [72 South. 860.]
    Chattel Mortgage. Trust deeds. Liability of third persons.
    
    Under the facts set out in this case the court held that the question of liability of defendant was a question for the jury.
    Appeal from the circuit court of Madison county.
    IIoN. Bobert Powell, Special Judge.
    Suit by C. T. Maris against D. & L. K. Levy. From a judgment on peremptory instruction for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
    One Mose Hawkins, tenant of appellant, gave him a note secured by deed of trust, covering all crops grown on appellant’s place as security for certain money owing by Hawkins to appellant. Thereafter Hawkins gave appellee a deed of trust on all crops raised by him to secure certain advances. According to the testimony of witness Finney, who was manager of appellant’s plantation, Hawkins carried his cotton to town without paying the balance due on the note held by appellant, and the next day witness missed the cotton and came to town' to try and locate it, and went to the office of certain cotton buyers in Canton, Miss. He testified that he met one of the members of the appellee.’s firm, who advisd him that they had the cotton and would hold it until the controversy was settled. The cotton was afterwards sold by Hawkins to Lewis, another cotton buyer, and the proceeds of the sale turned over to appellees by Hawkins. Appel-lees then turned one-fourth of the proceeds over to appellant as rent, and declined to pay over the balance to be credited on the note held by appellant, and suit was brought for same. Appellant claims that since ap-pellees knew of the appellant’s claim to the cotton under the deed of trust, and since they received the proceeds of this sale with such knowledge, they were participants in the sale of the Hawkins ’ cotton, and that, having received the proceeds, thereof with knowledge of appellant’s prior claim, they became liable to appellant for such proceeds. The court below gave a peremptory instruction to find for appellees, and this appeal is prosecuted.
    
      R. T. Ruber and R. B. Greaves, for appellant.
    
      W. R. & B. R. Poivell, for appellees.
   SteveNS, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The testimony for the plaintiff in this case was sufficient to justify a submission of the issue to .the jury. It is the positive testimony of the witness Finney that the cotton left Hawkins ’ farm at one time or on one day, and thát the following day this witness “missed it and came to .. see what he had done with it; ” that he went to the office of the cotton buyers in Canton, and in going there met one member of appellees ’ firm, wbo admitted that be bad' tbe cotton and would bold it until tbe controversy was settled. Tbe testimony further shows that appellees recived tbe proceeds of the sale of tbe cotton. Tbe granting to tbe appellees of tbe peremptory instruction, therefore,-was error, necessitating a reversal of this case.

Reversed and remanded.