The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1882-03-23
AGRICULTURAL LEESS.
An Important Decision by tho supreme
Court OF South Carolina.

-
The question of priority between the
| lien OF the landlord and that OF the mer-
| chant being Of frequent occurrence. the
| following decision just rendered will be
| read with interest:
KESSEDY vs.. REAME- ASD MILLER.
The defendant, Miller, agreed with The
defendant, Rcamc.. ID cultivate q certain
farm belonging 20 Rcames and to receive
| for his labor one.third Of the crop to be
ever, to the payment Of any claim
Reames might have agains, Miller for
| money or supplies which might be nd
vanced 10 him during the year. This
| agreement vas verbal, but under il Miller
went into possession Of the farm. lie
received some supplies from Reames, and
desiring more. during the year, he gave
plaintiff n lien under the Act Of March
ith, 1878, l6 Stat, AL parporting 10 be
on AL the crop TO be male on the farm
that year, 10 secure an advance for agri.
cultural purposes, 10 be made By the SAID
plaintiff There were made upon the
place that year five bales of cotton and
small quantity Of corn. The cotton wa.
received by Reames and the proceeds re.
taincd, bu, did no; atisfy his share of
two thirds and advances. The corn was
divided and onc.third forty or fifty BUSH
els, VA, lcft in the hands Of Miller, who
disposed Of it. IN 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 five bales Of
cotton which Rcames got be produced to
satisfy his debt, or that the money aris
ing from the sale should be paid into
Court The Circuit Judge gave indg.
ncnt for $40 and ntercs, for the plain
lin' against the defendant Reames, who
appealed.
Miller WAS n mere lirclng 10 be paid in
kind, and had no righ, to give q lien
upon the crop. which belonged to Reames
until the third part WAS delivered 20 him
Milicrl in payment for his labor. Sec
March 1881. Assuming that Miller was
"cultiyator Of the soil" in the scnse Of
| the Act Of 1878, so as 10 'e able to give
the lien, he was enant Of Reamcs
| The soil OF which lie WAS the cultiyatnr
| belonged to Rcames. and in reason and
| justice the amount due for such use and
occupation was rs much an advance for
agricultural purposes as any supplies
that could be furnished him.
| Section Of the Act provides that the
above section shall be subject to the pro-
! visions Of the following sections Of the
Act: That each landlord leasing lands
for agricultural purposes shall have n
prior and preferred lien for rent to the
extent of onc-,hird of all crops raised on
his lands, and enforceable in the same
manner rs liens for advances, which said
lien shall be valid without recording or
filing" So that Reames had preferred
statutory lien 10 the extent Mt least of
one. third of The crop AS to the re.
mainder Of his share of the crop he had
no lien, rs he had not filed an agree.
ment; but that was debt which Miller
owed Kcamcs, and which he paid by
transferring to him the whole Of the cot
ton made OH :he place. Rcamcs is not
legally responsible under the Act of 1878
for receiving the cotton, selling it and
applying the proceeds tc the balance Of
his debt. He was not q party to the
agreement with plaintiff. The statute
declared the lien and furnished the ma
cbinery to enforce it. viz, affidavit and
| WaITint Ill tHc HunoS OF Tie Nnefltt 10
seize the crop itself wherever found, but
not the proceeds received from the sale
Of the crop. The warrant was issued and
failed to secure any part of the crop, and
this action was ;.stituted to have efficacy
given to the statutory lien. The lien
given was right which the defective
machinery Of the statute failed to give
the means of enforcing. AS the right of
the plaintiff did not exist at common
law, but was entirely the creature of
sta.Mte, the Court cannot supply the
remedy and go beyond that afforded by
the statute. Mclaughlin vs.. Railroad
Company, S Rich. sos; Sternbergcr VS..
McSwcen, MSS, December 80, Jnly,
1880.
Judgment below reversed Opinion
by McGowan, a. J.
Mr.. JOS. u. Earle for appellants
Messrs. Haynesworth & Cooper for re-
spondent.