Case Name: Vinson v. Hallowell, &c.
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1874-01-22
Citations: 10 Bush 538
Docket Number: 
Parties: Vinson v. Hallowell, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
Case 19—PETITION EQUITY—
January 22.
Vinson v. Hallowell, &c.
APPEAL FROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.
Pledge of future crop for rent void.—The general rule of law is that a mortgage or grant of property to be acquired in futuro is void.
. Where by the terms of a lease the crop to be grown on the leased premises was pledged for the payment of the rent the landlord’s claim can not avail against the exemption rights in favor of the tenant’s family. (Ross, &c. v. Wilson, Peter & Co., 7 Bush, 29.)
Geo. W. Duvall,.........For Appellant,
CITED
1 Duvall, 22, Husbands and wife v. Bullock’s adm’r.
3 Bush, 242, Newman v. Winlock, adm’r.
7 Bush, 29, Ross, &c. v. Wilson, Peter, & Co.
6 Bush, 448, Thorn v. Darlington.
2 J. J. Marsh. 468. 1 Marsh. 302.
1 J. J. Marsh. 222. 1 Mon. 75.
Revised Statutes, 1 Stanton, page 423.

Opinion:
CHIEF JUSTICE PETERS
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was brought by appellant, the widow of E. C. Vinson, deceased, to recover the value of the wheat and corn necessary to furnish and sustain the widow and infant children of decedent one year with breadstuff.
It appears from the agreed facts that Vinson at the time of his death was a bona fide housekeeper with a family; that he left the appellant, his widow and four infant children, and left the wheat and corn in possession of his widow. Appellee sold them under his distress warrant for rent, claiming that he had leased the land to Vinson on which the wheat and corn grew, and that by the terms of the lease the crop to be grown on his land leased to Vinson was pledged for the payment of the rent.
In the case of Ross &c. v. Wilson, Peter & Co. (7 Bush, 29), in a well-considered opinion, this court held that at law the general rule is that a grant or mortgage of property to be acquired in future is void. It results therefore that the claim to the property under the agreement in the lease to pledge it before it existed can not avail against the rights of the widow and infant children secured by the statute.
Wherefore the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial and further proceedings consistent herewith.