The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-03-15
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Reported Weekly by Jenkins
a. Little, Attorneys al E.aw.

J. A. j. WooTEN,
4 vs. No. 29G9.
- b. GwIN, Ex'r.
? Error to the Circuit Court of Marshall
county, Hon. j. w. G. Watson, Judge.
This was an action brought by plaintiff
in error against j. G.. Westmoreland for
: $3.50 90 damages for refusing to identify
and for removing out of the State two bales
) of cotton, wlfully and maliciously, which
was bound to plaintiff for rent under the
laws of the State" Laws 1873, .. 70.
Westmoreland died pending the suit in tho
Circuit Court and the cause was revived
against Gwin, his executor. Judgment
was rendered for defendant below, and new
trial being refused, the plaintiff prosecuted
writ of error.
SIMRALL, @. J..
Held
1. The first section of the Act of 18th
April, 1873, (session acts p. 49, gives a
lien to the landlord on the crops raised ON
the demised premises, (Which applies
to the whole crop,) to secure an equitable
division "before such crop, or any part
thereof, shall, in any manner, be disposed
of or removed from the premises on which
it was produced"
2. The lien takes hold of the agricultural
products as an entirety, and is primarily de>
signed to retain them on the land until the
parties who have interests have had a divi-
sion. The remedy devised by the Act of
1872, is in aid of, and enforcement of the
lien. 1t is adapted to those cases where ,
the products can be taken into possession
by the officer and held amenable to the ul>
innate decision.
3. The rights which Wooten, the Land
lord had, was that the cotton should remain
on the demised premises until be had got
his portion for rent
4. 1t was decided in this case, reported $
in 81 Miss. p. o25, that the Landlord did N N
not have such interest in the cotton as con- W
ferl ed right of property, and could, there W
fore, maintain no action at law which rest c c
ID upon that title. c
B. The Statute of 1873 should be regard
ID as enlarging the security of the landlord
Prior to that he had no lien, only certain
not accorded to other creditors,
or the collection of his debt The most
'aluab!e of these was the right to pursue
he goods of the tenant for thirty days, and
eize hem; provided they had not been
ought in good faith. The tenant, under
ne present law, is the owner Gas he is under
ne former,) but subject to lien on the
ne whole mass Of the products. His lien q
lists as long as his debt, if the products .
ontinue in their original form and have
OF lost their identity.
6, In addition to the lien, the statute
rohibits removal from the demised prem
es before Others, having shares in the T.
'op. or other interest in it. have been sat ~
fed. That offence, punishable under
10 third section, is special injury to the
ndlord, or other person protected by the r
atute. 1t is an invasion of well defined -
gal right, and if it should result in the
IS or destruction of the right, no specific
NEEDY being provided by the statute Tor
J redress, the special action on the case
IS devised for such wrongs and is appro- Cal
opriate. But the act declared to be -,
'ongful. is a removal from the demised i'a q
emises, or such disposition as carries the Fur
operty off the premises The tenant, or
her person, liable, are all who participate @o
such unlawful disposition or removal
Westmoreland did not remove the cotton,
participate il it. He was not a confed- -
ate with the tenant in tho tort, therefore, n
is not liable in this action. u
Judgment affirmed. y
Chalmers J. dissented from the conclu-
n reached, and so much of the opinion
holds that Westmoreland was not liable
the action for damages for refusing TO n
Int out the cotton after he had purchas- q
it, and and running it out of the State IS
prevent Wooten from having it seized. -