The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-03-16

II
North Dakota that to validate chat
tel mortgage by tenant under such
contract he must acquire at some
stage of the proceeding, the title tc
the actual grain described in the mort
gage.
Hence, if the landlord shipped the
entire crop out Of the state. while the
title was still in his name as an I'M
| divided crop, subsequent division
and settlement with the tenant would
give the latter a right to certain
moneys representing the tenants in
terest in the proceeds of the sale OF
! the crop, but the chattel mortgage
would be defeated because 1t covered
the tenants undivided interest in GER
tain grain which under the lease never
became the property of the tenant, be-
cause the entire crop was sold while
the title thereto was in the landlord.
The court further held in its early
cases that chattel mortgage would
not follow the proceeds of sale and
attach to the tenants interest in such
proceeds.
1t was also held in one of
the early cases that these land
lord leases reserving title to the
crop need not be filed for
record so that a great deal of confu-
sion has arisen each year in the mar
keting of the grain crops Of this state.
Elevator companies have had great
difficulty in determining who were the
owners Of grain hauled to market for
sale and the same uncertainty has
existed on the part Of merchants and
implement dealers who held chattel
mortgages given by the tenant.
If there was a division Of the grain
in the field, the tenants share of the
grain would be sold by him, subject
to any mortgage he may have given
thereon. If there had been no divi-
sion, the tenant could not sell the grain
and the chattel mortgage given by him
did not attach if the landlord sold the
entire crop before division and settle
ment.
There have been three methods
usually followed in making settlement
between landlord and tenant @under
such contracts.
(1) The owner of the land and the
cropper would divide the grain as 1t
was threshed. each party taking his
own share and selling or storing 1t as
he saw At.
If the tenant had given chattel
mortgage on his share of the crop, and
1t was divided in the field. as above
described. then the chattel mortgage
or other creditor. would by such divi-
sion. attach to the grain turned over
to the tenant upon the division of the
grain in the field.
This method, IL 1t were exclusive,
would give the tenant the right to his
share of the grain itself, which would
be safe security by way OF chattel
mortgage. on which he could obtain
credit in the spring to secure groceries,
machinery and other necessaries to
carry him through the season.
AS a matter of fact, however, chattel
mortgages given by tenants on their
undivided interest in the seasons crop
become of very doubtful security, and
for this reason, tenants often found
1t difficult to obtain credit for the
necessary supplies to carry out their
choppers contract.
This was occasioned by the fact that
the landlord himself could defeat any
chattel mortgages given on the ten
ants share Of the crop by adopting an.
other method of division.
+ (2) This method was for the land
lord and tenant to haul the entire crop
to the elevator and mix it with other
grain in common storage and then to
either divide the storage tickets or the
proceeds of the sale OF the grainn
(3) The third common method of
division has been to haul all the grain
to the elevator in the name of the land
lord and sell it in his name at the local
market or ship the grain outside Of the
state and sell it in the name of the
landlord at grain terminal.
Thus If either of the two methods
last mentioned were employed, the ten
ant would never get any title to the
crop itself because the crop would
be sold while the title was still in the
landlord. When the time for division
and settlement came, the landlord
would account for the proceeds of the
sale of the tenants share Of the grain,
but the grain having been sold in the
name of the landlord under the con-
tract, there was never a time in this
stage of the proceeding when the title
to any part of the crop was ever vested
in the tenant, consequently, any mort
gage that the tenant gave on his in
terest in the crop failed because the
tenant failed to acquire title thereto.
The facts in the case in which the
court overrules the previous decision
and gives the tenant a vested interest
in the crop. even before the division
OF the landlord, were substantially as
follows:
Branum, the defendant. was tenant
Of certain lands in Benson county be-
longing to Knute e. Erickson and
in 1915 under the usual form OF con-
tract, whereby title and ownership Of
all the crop remained in the landlord
until the settlement and division Of in
terests in the fall.
At the time Branum became tenant
he had already executed a mortgage
to the International Harvester COM
pany, intervenor, on his one-half in
terest in the crops, to be raised in the
year 1915, which was a first mortgage.
Certain crops were raised upon the
land in the year 1915 by Branum and
such crops were hauled to the ele-
vator with the knowledge and consent
Of both Branum and the Ericksons.
Certain grain was hauled to the ele-
vator from day to day, and in the eve
ming of each day after the grain was
in for that day, storage tickets were
issued for the grain hauled on that day
one-haIf IN favor OF the landlord and
one-half for Branum, the tenant; that
the storage tickets issued in favor OF
the landlord were delivered to them,
and those issued in favor of Branum
were held by the elevator company.
The elevator company thus held for
Branum, 1902 1850 bushels of No. !
Durum wheat Before the elevator
company had received any Of the grain,
the harvester company had served
notice on the elevator company that II
held a chattel mortgage on the interest
Of Branum, the tenant. in this crop
After all the grain was hauled to the
elevator, the plaintiff, the Minneapolis