The Russellville Democrat., 1879-03-20
MORTGAGES.
Some Important Decisions by the
 Supreme Court.

SOIlc ACtctStOuS Oy tuC
 Supreme Court.
 There has been some question ambugst our business men as to whether a mortgage taken on a crop before it was planted. would hold good. Another question which has been involved in doubt is as to whether a mortgage crop on which a mortgage has been taken could be held liable for more than the amount specified in the mortgage. It not unfrequently occurs that the amount specified in . mortgage is taken up before the crop is made, and that without further advances to help grow and save the crop, the whole labor and former advances would be lost. There has been question whether or not such subsequent ad- vances, when in excess of the origi- nal amount specified in the mortgage, would constitute a lien on the crop of equal force and virtue to the0ng- inal amount.
 | In the Commercial Law Column of the St. Louis Commercial Gazette we find couple of decisions by the Supreme Court of our own State bearing directly upon these two points. We reproduce these decis- ions as a matter of considerable in terest to our readers:
 MORTGAGE IN FuTURo.
 Before it was planted, cotton crop was mortgagcd to secure further advances, and the amount of the ad- yances was left blank in the mort gage when it was recorded. Held to be a good mortgage even against party who afterward purchased the cotton for valuable consideration. Jarrett & Rogers vs. McDaniel & Mccormick, Sup. Ct, Arkansas.
 Tate & Faulkner, planters, execut- cd deed of trust for supplies, to be advanced by Sledge, Mckay & O., in order to make q crop. It embrac- ed mules and the cotton to be ralsed, and expressed the amount of $3.500 as the limit to oe advanced. The debt was also guaranteed by T. $. Tate, father of one of the planting firm. Afterward and in suborlina. tion to this deed, Tate & Faulkner executed a second trust deed upon the same property to secure T. $. Tate as an indorser for them of different debt. While the crop was being grown, the full amount of $3,- 500 having been advanced by $. M. & O., they refused to advance further. But T. $. Tate solicited and induced them to make further advances suffi cient to grow and save the crop, which they did to the extent of ST. 900. T. $. Tate became guarantor of this also. Cotton was shipped to $. NJ. & Co.,, sufficient to reduce their claim to 2,200 and their trustee re- plevied property to satisfy this bal ance. T. $. Tatc's trustee then filed a bill claiming that the first trust deed had been satisfied by payment of $3,5 and the property had be- come subject to the second. Held, that although the omouDt of supplies in the first deed of trust was limited to $3,500, it's CONTROLLING PURPOSE was to enable the grantors to grow the crop for that year. To have abandoned the crop in midsummer, would have been ruInous to all par ties. The request of T. $. Tate, the beneficiary in the second trust deed, that they should continue the ad- vances, was an implied waiver and postponement of his equities under the second deed until the whole ad- vances might be paid. It was for his interest that the advances should be made, as they contributed to the enlargement and preservation of the trust fund. A court of equity may subordinate the expression of amount in such deed to the higher purposes had m view when the deed was exc cuted, and wIll protect and uphold future advances beyond the amount expressed, when justice and equity require it, and it is necessary to carry out the purposes of the trust. Even If the debts due $. NJ. S Co. were to be considered as separate and the extra advances were not to be held secured by the first deed of trust, as no other appropriation of the shipments were made by the planters, $. NJ. & Co. had the right to apply them, as they did, first to the additional advances, leaving the balance secured by the deed of trust. Bell, Trustee vs. Radcliif, Trustee. Sup. Ct. asArk.