Case Name: CITIZENS BANK OF CAIRO v. J. L. PILCHER & SONS INC.
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1942-05-21
Citations: 67 Ga. App. 395
Docket Number: 29376
Parties: CITIZENS BANK OF CAIRO v. J. L. PILCHER & SONS INC.
Judges: Broyles, O. J., concurs.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 395–401

Head Matter:
29376.
CITIZENS BANK OF CAIRO v. J. L. PILCHER & SONS INC.
Decided May 21, 1942.
B. A. Bell, for plaintiff.
Boy Segler, Jesse J. Gainey, for defendant.

Opinion:
MacIntyre, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) Before the act approved July 15, 1924 (Ga. L. 1924, p. 125; Code, § 67-1101) there could be no mortgage on a crop until it was planted. Dawson National Bank v. Bank of Dawson, 42 Ga. App. 300, 302 (155 S. E. 791). However, this Code section provides as follows: "A mortgage given to secure advances for the purpose of making and gathering crops shall embrace and cover crops of such mortgagor before the same are planted or growing, when it is so stipulated therein, within the limit of the calendar year such crops may be planted." The Code, § 67-1105, provides, "Where advances either of money or supplies or both are made for the purpose of planting, cultivating, making, or harvesting a crop or crops, the borrower or person to whom such, money or supplies shall be fur nished may secure the same by a bill of sale to 'secure debt under section 67-1301, covering the crop or crops to be grown by him within 12 months from the date of such bill of sale, although such crop or crops may not be planted or growing at the time of the execution of such bill of sale: Provided, that the crop or crops shall be described in said bill of sale with the same particularity as the laws require for a crop mortgage, and the amount of said advances in money or supplies shall be definitely stated and fixed therein." Even if we say the words "the same particularity as the laws require for a crop mortgage" in the latter section do not refer to the particular kind of crop mortgage referred to in the former section, although both sections are in chapter 67 of the Code and this chapter discusses only liens on crop mortgages and bills of sale as they relate to crops grown within twelve months from the date of such instruments, but on the contrary say that these words refer to the general crop mortgage discussed in a different chapter in the Code, yet, how can the bill of sale for a crop mortgage be brought within the Code, § -67-1105, unless the amount of advances in money for the purpose of making and gathering the crop in question be "definitely stated and fixed therein"? Definitely fixed where ? We reply, in the instrument itself, not by extraneous testimony. And how can it be definitely fixed in the instrument itself unless it is stipulated therein how much—whether all or part of the money—was advanced in the making and gathering of the crop grown within twelve months from the date of the instrument? Thus, in order for the vendee in the bill of sale to bring himself within the provisions of § 67-1105, he must state therein, that is, in the bill of sale itself, that all, and if not all what part, of the advances were used in making and gathering the crop. The bill of sale in question does none of these things, and we do not think it comes under the provisions of § 67-1105. It was not constructive notice to an innocent third party.
The court did not err in holding that the plaintiff's bill of sale was inadmissible as evidence to show title to the cotton crop in question as against the defendant, an innocent third party in respect to the bill of sale, and in thereafter granting a nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, O. J., concurs.