The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-02-21

Court
the Tenant has No Show, But Under
More Recent and Humane Enactments
the Tenant is Given More Consideration
and the Severity of the Law is Modified
landlords Must Give Notice of Their
Liens.
Lord ScuIly, Butler county's baron.
has Just been defeated in the court OF
appeals. Aside from the fact that a
lord figured in-the case, of course mere
~ by his attorneys, the case is interest
ing in regard to the standing Of tenants
TO landlords in this state.
The opinion which afirms the case
and defeats Scuuy is a very able one
and was handed down by Judge John
son.
The case was entitled William Scully
against ]. II. PORTER. In 1887 William
SculIy, was the owner Of a 2OO-acre farm
in Towanda township. Butler county
Kansas. He leased this farm by writ
ten lease TO one J. w. Bledsoe for a pc
Rod of five year, rents payable in cash
annually. Bfedsoe occupied this farm up
10 and including March !, 1890. In 1890
BledsOe raised a crop Of corn on the
leased farm. placed the corn IN TWO
hens He had $500 bushels. About
Jan 20, 1890, BledsOe sold the corn to
j. II. Porter. who did not take Il away.
On the 9Th day OF February, 1890,
William Scully commenced an action
against J. y. Bledsoe in the district
court of Butler county Kansas to re-
cover the rents then Que on said farm
and to enforce a lien therefor on the
crops grown on the said farm in the
year 1899: the corn then still being in
the cribs ON said farm was attached by
the sheriff. and while the sheriff held
said corn under attachment this suit
In repleVin was commenced TO recover
the possession Of said corn
Under the order Of delivery issued on
The commencement of this action the
coroner of Butler county took the corn
out Of the possession. Of the sheriff and
delivered the same to J. II. Porter. plain
tiff below. Plaintiff elaine to be the
owner Of the corn by virtUre Of a pur-
chase from BledSoa on. or about the goth
day OF January, 1890, and payment for
which was made on January 90, and
without any notice that the corn was
raised on leased lands. or that Scully
had any lien up on the same.
This suit was commenced by H
Porter as plaintiff against Charles
Schran IS sheriff. After the commence
nent Of the suit William Scully, being
the real party in interest was on mo-
ton substituted as party defendant in
this action, and said ScUlly appeared
then and answered the petition Of the
plaintiff below, and all proceedings
thereafter was had in the action be
tween Porter and Scully. After issues
were fully joined the case was tried be-
fore the court with a jury, and verdict
and judgment for plaintiff below; de-
PENDANT below excepted and brought
the case to the court OF appeals for re-
view
The contention of the attorneys for
Lord Scully was that Porter, the pur-
chaser Of the corn, was liable TO Scully
Judge Johnson in his opinion says that
Porter was not liable because he had
no notice that there was a landlords
lien on the farm, as none was on file
with the register Of deeds.
Judge Johnson says:
Section 26 makes the purchaser of
the crop, who purchased with notice.
liable TO the landlord for the value OF
the crop purchased, not to exceed the
amount of rent due. The main ques-
ton for consideration IN this section is,
does the lien of the landlord affect the
purchaser of the crop without notice of
The landlords lien; or in other words,
can the tenant in possession sell the
crops grown on the leased premises to
a stranger who has no notice of the
landlords lien, and pass a title of the
crop 10 him freed from the lien. One
who purchases the crop with notice of |
20 ~ ian to Iso1,l - 4,
landlord the value of the crop purchased
not to exceed the amount of rant due
of payable. 1t would seem to follow
that one who purchased the crop with !
out notice would take it freed from all |
claims or liens of the landlord Secret |
liens are not favored by our law The
legislation Of this state has never been |
against the rights of lien holders who do !
not in some of the modes prescribed by |
statute. give notice of his lien y
party holding a lien on real estate may
hose il if he does not have the same re- |
corded in the Office IF the register of |
deeds Of the county where the property ]
Is situated. or give actual notice in |
some manner TO those about to deal |
with the owner thereof. so in cases Of |
liens by mortgages or otherwise on per-
eonal property. if the instrument con-
tanning such lien is not filed in the Office |
Of register Of deeds Of the county where |
the property is situated and a person
purchases the same from the owner /
therect who has possession Of the pro-
perty- and has no knowledge of such
Her, he takes 1t freed from the lien A |
tenant who IA sesacroponleaS edland i !
tenant who IA Uses A cron on leased |
lands whore he Is required by the terms
OF MS lease 10 pay cash rent. is the |
owner Of the crops raised by him. sub |
Jet only 10 the lien Of the landlord for |
rents due or payable: but he may sell |
ana dispose OF the crop and pass a title |
70 the purchaser. the purchaser being |
liable 10 pay the landlord the value OF l
ina crops purchased. If purchased with |
notice Of such lien; but if the purchaser
mas no notice Of the lien Of the landlord
he takes them freed from any lien. I'M
fsss ne IS IN possession Of St.,.h facts a
would put reasonable prudent per |
r'n ON inquiry as 10 whether the c~ops |
were raised on leased premises. and |
whether the rents were paid.
There was no error in the ruling the |
court IN overrullnE the motion 10 strike |
out. and IT. overruliug the demurrer IA |
me second count in the reply of the |
plaintiff below.
The final contention Of the plaintiff N |
error Is that the court errer in the in 1
etructions given 10 the jury. and in ~ /
Tusnig - instruct them as required nv /
The defendant below. Th, argument ~ |
support Of this assignment Of error IS |
based on the theory that the landlord |