Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-03-23
AN IMPORTANT DECISION TO
FARMERS.
1ndemnifying Bonds and Crop Lien

In the month of August last. in the
county of Norfolk, X, n landlord, agreed
in writing to furnish S, her tenant,
certain advances in money and sup
plies. TO enable him to make a crop for
the ensuing year, reserving. at the same
time. lien thereon, pursuant to the
provisions of section 2494-6, Code OF
virginia. 1897. and the acts OF 1912
paragraph 7S2. amcndatory thereof.
These advances, consisting of n large
quantity of guano. were duly delivered
to and placed In tie possession of S, for
the purpose stated. But. before S had
USED this guano upon his land. NJ. who
had previously recovered n judgment
against 5, sued out an execution there
on and put 1t in the hands of the sher-
IN of Norfolk county. with direction to
levy on the property and to sell the
same to satisfy the lien of the execu-
whaibar ,h doubt nroror howsyer arising
such levy, the sheriff. by virtue of sec
ton 1901. Code of Virginia. 1887. de-
manded an indemnifyng bond to save
him harmless in consequence OF any
damages which he might otherwise sus-
tain.
Thereupon, M, refusing to give such
bond. presented his petition to the Cir
cult Court of Norfolk county. praying
Tor the award of the writ OF mandamus
to compel the sheriff to levy:-and.
upon this petition, n very vital and In
teresting question was submitted. call
ing for proper Interpretation OF the
TWO sections of the Code above quoted,
ana the acts amending those sections.
1T was strenuously contended in argu-
ment by counsel for the petitioner that,
under the acts OF Assembly 1875, para
graph sos. amending section 1901 of the
Code. the sheriff had no right in the
present case nor in Il similar case. to
demand an indemnifying bond. and
that he must proceed to levy and sell
under tho pNnrntinn I'm, 10 dc ,,ia
prevented from so doing. by the ten
der of suspending bond executed by
the claimant of the property.
This position was strongly combatted
by counsel for the landlord and tenant.
who claimed that the statute relied on
by counsel for the petitioner was. in n
proceeding like the one under consid-
Grafton. wholly inupplicable. that stat
ute meaning simply that where the
property in dispute is in the possess
sion of the party against whom the
process issued. but is claimed by any
other person. or is claimed to belong to
any other pcrson"-the two expressions
meaning one and the same thing-the
sheriff. unless the claimant give a sus-
pending bond. shall proceed to levy the
process. and he shall incur no liability
in consequence. They further maintain
ed that, by virtue of sections 2i94-6
Code of Virginia. 1887. and the amend
ntory acts of 1912. page 7S2, an eaui-
'"pi' iith eNisleu on the property In
question. and that S had no interest
therein that could be subjected to the
lien OF an execution. The plain objects
or the statute were to enable the ten
ant. or planter. who might Unfortunate
~ be in reduced circumstances, to OBJ
tain advances with which to grow and
cultivate crop, and to secure To the
landlord. or other person. n prior lien
thereon. to the extent of such advances.
when the crop should be made Indeed
the advances. or fertilizers thus fur
hiShed are. In n legal sense n part
ana parcel of the crop Itself. absolute
~ inseparable. the one form the other
Neither landlord nor tenant had any
iesal ute TO them and neither could
in any manner. dispose OF them: and
That. therefore, any other construction
OF the statue would defeat the plain
ana obvious purposes which influenced
It's enactment. These views after n very
learned and able opinion delivered from
the bench, were sustained and the peti-
ton FOR mandamus refused. This decis-
ION is one of most material interest to
the FARMING community. and every ono
engaged in the cultivation of the soil
should be familiar with it. Though of
such vast importance, as affecting all
throughout the limits OF the state oc-
cupied with agricultural pursuits. the
question has never before UP to the
present time, met with judicial detcrmi-
nation. The petitioner was represented
by Heath and Heath. and the landlord
and tenant by C. w. Coleman. and
Walker and Old.