Oxford eagle. (Oxford, Lafayette Co., Miss.) 1876-current, 1888-11-22
Aa0ThER IMPORTANT CASE
a Land Owner Can Mortgage
His Cr9s Before Planting Il.

Ga Monday Of last week the
Supreme Court rendered the
following important decision:
IT gcc0EN vS p MAYER.
Cooper. = delivered the opiu
ION of the cCu-t
TIE single question presented
by this appeal IS whether the
owner oil the soil may make a
sale valid ami enforceable al
Law. of a crop 90 be thereafter
planted on his iaEd.
We consider the point as set
lied Ia the affirmative by the
case OF Everman vs. R0b5. -
Miss. 6j1 Ia ihas ease the ac-
ton vas began by an attach
meHt for rent sued ont by the
landlord, uudeF which certain
cotton ia the possession Of Ev-
erman l. Co. Was seized; the
landlord claimed a prior right
10 the cotton by reason ola res
ervaliOu ia the lease aud "a grant
by the tenant. tie lease having
been executed aud acknowledge
eel both by the Iaul0rd and ten
ant, subsequent to the lease the
tenants gave au agricultural
lieu" for supplies TO Everman \
Co.. and delivered the cOtto2 to
them IN payment of the debt sc
cured thereby.
Everrnan * Co, interpOsed a
claimants issue instead eft bring
iug the statutory action of re
Dievin. but the cause was tried
without objection having been
made on account OF the irrega
larIties. The court while crlti
cisiRg the form of procedure,
dealt with the ease as an action
of Feplevin. aud declared what
were the legal nights Of the par
ties.
The Judge by whom the Opin-
ton was written. br0adened the
iels! Of discussion, aud entered
somewhat into the history ct
equitable liens which courts OF
Law couIl not enforce, but the
poiut for decision Was whether
an implanted crop has a ''poten-
tIal existence" making il the
subject of "a valid sale by the
owner of the soil, aud the cOuEt
on this point said;
THESE tenants were parehas
eTs Of the hand for the term of
five years. to be used for agri
cultural purposes. rs security
for the price 70 he paid they
pledged the erep The thing
hypOtheeated was to spring out
of the soil: 1t vas directly con
neeted with the land which the
tenants owned for TIE term
The crops were contingencies
depending on present existing
property or interest ia the les
sees, and therefore the subject
Of sale or assignment Story on
Sales. Gee. IS6" while a per
son cannot make a present sale
OF the wg0l that may grow en-
sheep which he may hereafter
buy. nor of any other thing ia
" Llch hts interest - VII billy pro
speetive and doubtful. there may
be a valid sale Of the wine a
vineyard Is expected to pro
duec- or the graIa a field Is ex-
peeted To grow. the milk OF
cow for the next year, or the fl
tire Young of animals, Story on
sales section lsJ.n
Ii is therefore settled by that
cas- e
list. That one may make a
present sale or mortgage of
things having a potential exis
tenee, as the books designate
il; aud
2ud. That an implanted crop
has such potential existence
rs to the owner or lessee of the
soyl.
The Judgment IS reversed and
Judgment here on the agreed
facts for the appellant.
By the above opinion it will
be seen that the Legislature
made another b!uader when
they tried tie repeal the crop lien
law. Had the Legislature pro
Ai5iied the giving ola crop mort
gage they would have done what
they wanted to do and intended
10 TO but which, through iguo
rance or earelessness, they did
not 30. The people of lissis
sippi generally want this law re-
peaIed. taken of the books, and
blotted out Of trade. Ii Is some
satisfaction To- know that the
crop mortgage system has pref
Is well settled itself by the far
mers, they have generally quit
giving crop mortgages and Dig
credit prices
The Presidential Electors eho
sen his year vii EsSs5 a. 5ieiT