Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1882-03-30
;S3agisfellaneans &eading,
AGRICULTURAL LIENS.

IMPORTANT DECISION By TIE SUPREME
COURT or gOU1H CAROLINA.
The question Of priority between the lien Of
the landlord and that Of the merchant being
Of frequent occurrence, the following decision
recently rendered by the Supreme Court of
South Carolina viii be of interest to many:
KENNEDY VS.. REAMEs AND MILLER.
The defendant, Miller, agreed with the de-
fendant, Reames, to cultivated certain farm be-
longing to Reames and to receive for his labor
onelthird of the crop to be produced upon the
place subject, however, to the payment of
any claim Rean,es might have against, Miller
for money or supplies which might be advanced
to him during the year. This agreement was
verbal, bat under IL Miller went into posses
sion of the farm. He received some supplies
from Reames, and desiring more, during the
year, he gave plaintiff lien under the Act of
March, 4th, 1878, 16 Stat, all, purporting to
be on all the crop to be made on the farm that
wear, to secure an advance for agricultural
purposes, to be made by the said plaintiff.
There were made upon the place that year five
bales Of cotton and a small quantity of corn.
The cotton was received by Reames and the
proceeds retained, but did not satisfy his share
Of two-thirds and advances The corn was di-
yided and enc third, forty or fifty bushels. was
leftin the hands of Miller, who disposed of it..
Tn December of that year, the plaintiff took
out under the Act, an agricultural warrant
against Miller. The sheriff, however, found no
part of the crop in the possession OF Miller.
The plaintiff then brought this action in the
Circuit Court against both Reames and Miller,
praying that the Aye bales of cotton, which
Reames got, be produced to satisfy his debt,
or that the money arising from the sale should
-, 4 * r;rn,,it 1r6no oou
Judgment for $40 and interest; for the plain
tiff against the defendant Reames, who ap-
pealed.
The Supreme Court decides as follows Mil
| ler was mere hiteling to be paid in kind and
had no right to give a lien upon the crop,
which belonged to Reames until the third part
was delivered to him (diller) in payment fol-
his labor. See Huff vs.. Watkins, MSS. De.
cision, Doth March, 1881. Assuming that
Miller was a "cuEivator Of the son' in the
sense of the Act of 1878, so as to be able to
give the lien, he was tenant of Reames. The
soil of which he was the cultivator belonged
| to Reames, and in reason and justice the
amount due for such use and occupation was
as much an advance for agricultural purposes
| as any supplies that could be furnished him.
| Section Of the Act provides "that the
above section shall he subject to the provis-
ions of the following sections of the Act
That each landlord leasing landstvr agricultu
raj purposes shall have a prior and preferred
lien for rent to the extent Of one-third of al
crops raised OH his lands, and enforceable in
the same manner as liens for advances, which
said lien shall be valid without recording Of
fling" So that Reames had a preferred stat
utory lien to the extent at least of one-third
of the crop. AS to the remainder of his share
of the crop he had no lien, as he had not filed
an agreement; bat what was debt which
Miller owed Reames, and which he paid by
transferring to him the whole of the cotton
made on the place. Reames is not legally re-
sponsible under the Act of 1878 for receiving
the cotton, selling it and applying the proceeds
to the balance of his debt. He was not a par
ty to the agreement with plaintiff. The stat
ute declared the lien and furnished the machin
cry to enforce it, viz, affidavit and warrant
! in the hands of the sheriff to seize the crop it.
self wherever found, but not the proceeds re-
ceived from the sale Of the crop. The warrant
was issued and failed to secure any part Of the
crop, and this action was instituted to have
efficacy given to the statutory lien. The lien
given was right, which the defective ma
chinery of the statute failed to give the means
of enforcing As the right of the plaintiff did
not exist at common law, bat was entirely the
creature of statute, the Court cannot supply
the remedy and 60 beyond that afforded by the
statute. Mclaughlin VS.. Railroad Company
5 Rich. 59s Sternberger VS.. McSween, MSS.
Decision, 80 July, 1880.
Judgment below reversed. Opinion by Nc
1 Gowan A r - #.- .-.t-