The Newberry herald. [volume] (Newberry, S.C.) 1865-1884, 1882-03-23
Agricultural LIENS.
IN Iraportant Decision By the Supreme Court
of South Carolina.

The question Of priority between
fhe lien cf the landlord and that OF
ire merchant being of frequent &C.
.;nrrence, the following decision just
rendered will be read with interest:
Kennedy Us. Reames and Miller.
The defendant, Miller, agreed with
,l,e defendant, Reanes, to cultivate
certain farm belonging to Reaues and
{ 10 receive for his labor one-third OF the
crop to be produced upon the place;
subject, however, to the payment of
.,uv claim Reames might have against
Miller for money or supplies which
,oight be advanced to him during the
wear. This agreement was verbal
int nnder it Miller went into posses
siop of the farm. He received some
supplies from Reames, and desiring
more, during the year, be gave plain
t;ff q lien under the Act of March
s4th, 1878, l6 Stat. All, purpoFting to
De on all the crop to be made on the
farm that year, to secure an advance
for agricultural purposes, to be made
81 the said plaintiff. There were
made upon the place that year five
bales of cotton and small quantity OF
corn. The cotton was received oy
Reames and the proceeds retained,
hut did not satisfy bis share of two
thirds and advance. The corn was
divided and one-third: forty or htty
bushels, was left in the hands of Mil
Ger, who disposed Of it. In December
Of that year, the plaintiff took ont
npder the Act, an agricultural war
rant against Miller. The sheriff. how
ever. found no part of the crop in the
possession of Miller. The plaintiff
then brought this action in the CIR;
eu;s Court against both Reames and
Miller, praying that the five bales OF
cotton. which Reames got, be pro-
duced to satisfy bis debt, or that the
money arising from the sale should
Be paid into Court. The Circuit
Judge gave judgment for $40 and in-
terest. for the plaintiff against the
defendant Reames, who appealed.
The Supreme Court decides as fol
lows :: Miller was a mere hireling to
he Maid in kind and had no right to give
a len upon the crop, which belonged to
Reames until the third part was de-
liyered to him (Mil!er) in payment
for his labor. See Huff VS.. Watkins
MSS. December, 29th March, 1881
Assuming that Miller was ''cultl'
vator of the soiP' in the sense Of the
Z Act of 1878, so as to be able to give
the lien, he was tenant of Reaues
The soil of which he was the cultlva'
tor belonged to Reames, and in reason
and iustice the amount due for such
use and occupation was as much an
advance for agricultural purposes as
any supplies that could be be fur
nished him.
Section 5 of the Act provides "tha'
the above section shall be subject te
the provisions of the following sections
of the Act. That each landlord ieas'
ing lands for agricultural purposes
shah have a prior and preferred lien
for rent to the extent of one-third o1
all crops raised on his laDds, and en-
forceable in the same manner as liens
for advances, which said lien shall be
valid without recording or filing" Sc
that Reames had preferred statutory
lien to the extent at least Of one-thlrd
Of the crop. As to the remainder Of
his share of the crop he had no lien
as he had not fled an agreement; but
that was a debt which Miller owed
Reames, and which he paid by trans
ferring to him the whole Of the cotton
made on the place. Reanes is moi
legally responsible under the Act Of
1878 for receiving the cotton, selling
it and applying the proceeds to the
balance of his debt. He was not
party to the agreement with plaintiff
The statute declared the lien and fur
nished the machinery TO enforce it.
viz. affidavit and warrant in the hands
of the sheriff to seize the crop ltsel'
wherever found, but not the proceeds
received from the sale of the crop
The warrant was issued and failed te
secure any part of the crop, and this
action wss Instituted to have efficacy
given to the statutory lien. The lier
given was right, which the defective
machinery of the statute failed to glVs
the means of enforcing. AS the righ'
of the plaintiff did not exist at com
mon law, but vas entirely the creature
of statute, the Court cannot supply
the remedy and 60 beyond that afford
ed by the statute. Mclaughlin vs.
Railroad Company, 5 Rich, 59S
sternberger vs.. Mcsweep, MSS, De
cenber 80: July. 1880.
Judgment below reversed. Opiu
ION by MCGOWAN, A. j.
Mr.. Jos. H Earle for appellants
Messrs. Haynesworth l. Cooper f0l
respondent.
a Good Housewife.