The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1923-07-30
COUNTY CROP
LIEN GOOD FOR
ONLY ONE YEAR
Supreme Court Holds It Does
Not Continue to Subsequent
Crops of individuals
IN ROLETTE co. CASE
Court Finds Purpose of Leg
islature Defeated If Lien
Is Continued
IN ROLETTE co. CASE

The legislature of North Dakota
in enacting law permitting counties
to bond to provide seed and feed ant
giving the county a lien-to secur,
payment of the seed and feed, dit
not contemplate that the lien Of tn
county would be good against crops
each year until the county was paid
Instead, it contemplated only tha
"the statute contemplates that tn,
lien shall cover only those particula,
crops raised during the cropping sea
son for which the seed and feed wer,
so furnished.'
This is the Interpretation of tn,
supreme court upon the law, as ex
pressed in the case of the Rolett,
State Bank against the Minnekot,
Elevator Company. Many crop lien'
of counties and of banks and indivi
dCals will be affected by the decision
it is believed.
The decision of the court was de-
livered on an appeal from the strict
court of Rolette county, A. G.. Burr
judge, the case being affirmed. Tn.
courts opinion is by Justice w. L
Nuessle.
The Rolette State Bank brought NJ
action for damages on account of al
legged conversion of grain raised b!
one Goode on which the plaintiff.
held chattel mortgage. Goode CAV,
a chattel mortgage for $4,000 to tn,
bank on his 1921 crop. In 1920 h,
had obtained seed and feed from Ro
lette county and the county had per
fected lien. When he went I,
market grain in September, 1921, tn,
bank and county both claimed pay
ment of the elevator company. TIL,
elevator company took the grain an,
paid Goode, the bank and county no.
being paid.
The defendant. in answering in thu
law suit, had alleged that the plain
tiff is estopped from asserting an,
claim on the grain by reason of tht
alleged mortgage lien being seconc
and subsequent to that of the county
of Rolette, and that the plaintiff
therefore. was not injured by action.
of the defendant with reference t.
the grain.
The court, in its opinion, after
quoting the statutes with reference
to seed and feed liens. says that the
statute is rendered somewhat ambi
guous by the language employed.
However, after a careful examina.
tion of the various enactments be.
ginning with the original enactments
chapters. l52, 153 and 154; Laws OF
1890, we are of the opinion that the
statute contemplates that the lien
shall cover only those particular
crops raised during the cropping sea.
SON for which the seed and feed were
so furnished"
1T seems apparent that the legis-
lature did not intend that any other
crops than those raised in the parti-
cular year in which seed and feed
were furnished should be charged
with the lien therefor. Any other in
tention would have been subversive
Of the underlying purposes of the
legislation because a lien on the
crops of succeeding years would have
made 1t difficult for the recipient of
the aid extended to thereafter help
himself by using his crops for such
years as security; would have made
1t difficult for him, did the need
arise, to secure seed or credit from
other than governmental sources. In
short, such an Interpretation as con.
tended for by appellant would be
either unwarranted, il the crop rails.
ed were sufficient to meet the need.
OF the lienor, or if insufficient, would
tend to make the recipient the per.
petual debtor of the county-in one
case. unnecessary, in the other de.
Testing the declared purposes of the
act"