The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 1850-1873, 1872-10-18
-,


tract or parcel Of land. IN the Fall Q
the year, the cotton raised upon the rent
ed premises. amounting to some 8 bales
was ginned and baled ct the gin Q
complainant. Defendant Maxwell dis
posed Of of said bales and on the da,,
before the attachment bill was filed II
this cause, he sold to defendants Ma
lone Il Houston, the other six bales
without the knowledge, consent or per
nilsson of Philips, the landlord. Ma
lone q Houston bought and paid to Max
well the cash for said bales of cotton
without any knowledge or notice Of the
landlords lien upon the same for hi
TENT. The cotton. was sold in:the even
ing and was delivered the same night
On the next day the bill was filed ant
the cotton levied upon by attachment
II Is shown and admitted the cotton Wa
purchased by Malone & Houston, with
out notice Of the landlords lien and il
is also admitted as well as proved thai
the attachment was levied upon the
Identical cotton raised on the landlords
premises and sold by Maxwell to Ma.
lone d Houston. And this state of facts
as developed in the record, presents for
our calculation the sole question
whether in such case the landlords lie,
upon the crop or the claim of the pur-
chaser, srithou notice, should prevail.
LIST. The first act, in this State, upon
the subject of the landlords remedies,
was that of 1925, oh. 81, which declares
that any debt by note account OF
otherwise, created for the rent of land. is
u lien on the crop growing or made on
The premises, in preference to all other
debts from the state Of the contract and
further provides that the lien continues
for three mont lbs. after the debt becomes
due, and until the termination Of any
suit commenced within that time tor
such rent.
Under the provisions of this act OF
1925, Oh. q, our courts held that the lien,
given the landlord on the crop, was like
any cher general lien on property not
in the possession of the owner of the
lien,-that such lien was neither Jus in
re nor jus dd rem, giving the landlord
neither right to the crop, nor any IN
terest or title therein, but merely prior
ity of satisfaction out of the proceeds,
and that it had to be enforced against
the crop itself or not at all. They held
further that the landlord could only en-
force his said lien by first getting judg-
ment against the tenant within the time
prescribed, and then enforce his lien by
execution levied upon the crops.
But, if it so happened that the crop,
meantime, mad been sold and removed,
the landlord could maintain no action
against the purchaser, although he had
notice of the lien.
(See Ballsntine vs.. Greer, 6 Yerg. r.
267; Lawrence VS.. Jenkins Yerg. r.
494; Hardemau VS.. Shumate, Meig's X.
1893; Byars VS. Buckholder, Humph. r
SCI, and Broyles VS.. Lowrey, 2Sneed's X.
22.)
I'd. So stood the act of 1925 with the
decisions giving it construction, until
the act Of 1878, CHI. 81, was passed,
smending and enlarging it, all of which
are found in the code, % 1889, S540, 354l
and 3542.
Now in what respects is the act OF
1925 amended and enlarged ty the act
of 1878, and the sections of the code
above cited? We think in these partic-
ulars:
LIST. The code, 1886. gives more dis
tinctly lien from the date of the contract.
I'd. The code, 3542, gives the landlord
a right to recover of the purchaser, NTH
notice of tine lien, the Udlate of the prop
erty, which was not provided in the act
of 1925, and,
Sd. In addition to this remedy by judy
HtCfst W totC dkolitst tuO bOhdAe anu ga
ecution to be levied on the crop in who
soeyer hands it may be, the code, 3o41,
declares that the lien may be enforced
by original attachment issued on afhda-
Wit that the rent is due and unpaid, or,
before due, on affidavit that the defend
ant is about to remove or sell the crop.
Under these provisions of the act of
1878, and sections of the code it has
been held that bill will lie in this
court to attach the crop, Sharp VS..
Fields, l. Heisk. 57l.
1t has also been held by our court in
the case of Hill VS.. George, /. Head, r
1874, that the landlords lien upon the
crop oven rides the claim OF thetenant to
part Of the crop under the exemption
laws. The court put the decision upon
the ground that, under our laws as they
now stand, the landlords lien is spe-
cfc one, while the exemption is gene
raL
This decision seems to place the. lien
of the landlord on different footing
from the decisions under the act of 1875,
the latter treating it as vague and gene
raj, or rather as nothing but a right of
., tority, while the opinion of Judge
Wright in Hill VS.. George, treats it as a
specific lien. And this, we think, is GER
1t stands as a vendors lien upon the land
sold, or the mechanics on the house
built, or any other of like character,
each having its own peculiar mode OF
as furnished under our Ju-
dicial system.
If then the landlord has specific,
lien upon the crop, and if he
may enforce it, as we have seen, by at
tachment, in the very nature OF things,
and analogy to all other liens of a spe
cifc character, it must follow that wher
ever the landlord can reach by attach
ment the identical crop-the specific
thing to which his lien attaches, he has
The right to levy upon and impound it,
and his lien thus enforced, will be supe-
rior to the equities of purchaser Nth
Or tcithoM notice, and of all other per-
sons whomsoever. 1t would be totally
with all our legal ideas of a
specific lien, 10 suppose, that it could be
defeated withoutjany. waiver, ldches, de-
tault, or negligence of the landlord, by
the mere wrongful act of the tenant,
it might work hard
ship to the innocent purchaser. But
does this differ fiom the pur-
chaser of mortgaged property, where the
mortgage is registered? The registra-
lion OF the mortgage is constructive no.
lice to the purchaser, and he is bound by
it, although in point of fact, he may be
entirely ignorant of its existence. Here
the ldW gives the lien and furnishes
equally constructive notice to the pur-
chasers. In such case the doctrine OF
cdUeat empt0r applies with full force.
Sd. But it is insisted, that the re-
medy given By attachment applies only
n NH tho hoe mt INlQSQd
from the hands OF the Tenant and that
the remedy by judgment and "execu-
ton to be levied ON the crop in whose
soever hands it may be-" applies, and
applies to cases alone, whore the tenant
has sold or disposed of the crop. We
coincide with this view OF the
law. The legislature evidently saw the
worked to the landlord under
the old act Of 1925, and the .decisions
which followed; and, with view to
correct these evils, they intended to en-
large the landlords remedies; and if we
will only look at the spirit of their leg
islation, it must be obvious that the
views we have Caken is the correct one.
The legislature did not take away or
abridge any of the landlords remedies
under the old act; but they added to,
and enlarged them. The remedies given
by the legislature are threefOld: LIST.
You may sue the purchaser for the value
of the crop, where he has notice of the
lien. And this provision evidently
a case, where the crop has
been placed beyond the reach Of the
landlord, or,
I'd. You may take judgment against
the tenant and levy your execution upon
the crop, and this expressly contem-
plates a case where the identical crop
can be found; or,
Sd. Instead of waiting for a judgment,
IA nh In. fi,ara fifsaas oft Last lllifrhf