The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1880-11-13
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Wrporfed weekly by J. w. Jenkins
AttOrney-Rt.LRW.
OCTOBER TERN. 1850.
sIpoRE STRAUSS, trustee,

/
sIDORE STRAUSS, trustee,
VS..
IL. +. Bailey.
Error to the Circuit Court, first District
Kinds county, Hon. S. $. Calhoon, Judge
r. Il. Holmes rented land to Hudson \
Phillips, for the year 1870, for 5000 pounds
of lint cotton, and at same time rented
them certain mules, with which to make 4
crop on said land, for the price of $50 each
to be paid either in money, cotton or corn,
as said tenants might elect.
shortly afterwards, and with the knowl'
edge and consent of Holmes, the tenants
executed deed of trust to plaintiff in
error, us trustee, TO secure W. q. strauss,
a merchant, in the payment OF certain sup
plies which the latter agreed to furnish
during that year, and Which were furnished,
one of the tenants refused to assist in
gathering the crop and consequently
Holmes was compelled, in order to save it
to advance money to have it gathered,
hauled and gnned, and also to buy bag
ging and ties tor the cotton.
There were only fourteen bales of cotton
made, eleven of which were turned over to
Holmes by the tenants in payment OF the
rent, and the remaining three bales were
turned over to him by them in payment of
the mule rent and the money expended by
him for picking, etc. The whole of the
cotton having been delivered to Bailey by
Holmes TO hold subject to the lattcr'S order,
plaintiff in error sued out writ Of repleVin
to recover possession of the three bales
over the rent, claiming that his deed of
trust should have precedence, rs to them,
over the claim of Holmes for the rent of
team and for money expended by the latter
for gathering the crop NC, and also, that
the trust deed gave the right of possession
to the entire crop, to the trustee, regard
less of Holmes lien for rent.
NJ. Green for plaintiff in error
JEW. jenkins for defendant in error.
CHALMERS, G. j.
Held
The case divides itself into two branches;
Ist As to whether the landlords claim Tor
rent can be asserted in this proceeding.
I'd Whether the character Of advances
made by the landlord in this is covered by
the statutes comforting agricultural liens,
most of them having been made after the
notice of the trust deed to the merchant.
/. 1t is conceded that eleven bales of the
cotton in cOntrovcrsary had been delivered
by the tenants in payment OF the rent, that
they were N in excess of the amount due,
and that the lien of the landlord for his
rent was superior to that of the merchant
for goods sold. But it is insisted that the
landlord, having u mere lien, like the lien
of Judgment creditor, which gives neither
Il right of property nor of possession, he
successfully resist writ of rcplevin
brought by trustee who has by the trust
deed of the tenants been clothed with the
legal title, and with the right of possession
upon condition broken. 1t is said that the
landlord, being Il mere lien-holder, must
surrender possession to him who is legally
entitled to it and then assert in court of
Chancery, or in the special method pointed
out by the statute the priority Of lien to
which he is entitled This view of the
landlords right is too narrow and technical.
The crop comes into existence with the
statutory right of the landlord inherent in it
which cannot, by any act of the tenant, be
Invested. When the tenant, by his trust
deed, conveys the legal title for the benefit
Of him who sells him goods or advances
him money, the conveyance is intended
only security for the debt incurred and is
by law subOrdinated to the rights of the
landlord. 1t certainly cannot be within
yhe contemplation of the parties that they,
1r either of them, thereby disable them
selves from doing that which the law
would eventually compel them to do, and
lence it must be in the power of the ten
mt to deliver, and of the landlord to re-
,eive, n sufliciency of the crop to satisfy
hat claim of the latter which inheres in
very portion of it and overlides every
,ther debt or demand whatever. 1t is
made criminal by the statute to sell, remove
" dispose of any part Of the crop which is
subject to any of the liens created by the
statute until the same have been satisfied.
i may well admit of doubt, in view of this
statute. whether the trustee could, by
writ of repleyin, take the property from the
enant without the consent of the unpaid
landlord, and certainly he cannot take it
rom the landlord to whom it has been de-
ivered by the tenant to an amount not in
Excess of his first demand. The better
curse for the party protected by the trust
Iced would seem to be to resort to a court
# Chancery, if he has doubts as to the
tate of the liens of the several parties in
interest.
2. 1t is objected that the landlord has no
len in this case beyond MS claims Tor rent, |
ecause the outside claims presented by
i'm are not protected by the statute. As
o his charge for the animals furnished for
the crop it is expressly covered
Y the statute, the contract having been
Jade before the landlord had notice of the |
lerchant's trust deed. The other items
re for money paid in handling, ginning,
nd packing the cotton, furnishing bagging
nd ties, and gathering the crop of one of
he tenants who failed to pick Outhis cotton.
'hese claims originated after the landlord
ad notice of the merchants advances, but
re think, nevertheless, that they take pri-
rty over such advances. The charges are
II work done for the common good of all
arties, which was absolutely essential in
rider that the crop might be made availa-
lie to those interested. No matter by
hon done they must be paid since they
lured to the common benefit of all.
Judgment affirmed.