Case Name: Watkins v. Walls
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1927-01-24
Citations: 172 Ark. 696
Docket Number: 
Parties: Watkins v. Walls.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 172
Pages: 696–698

Head Matter:
Watkins v. Walls.
Opinion delivered January 24, 1927.
McMillen é Scott, for appellant.
W. R. F. Paine, for appellee.

Opinion:
Kirby, J.,
(after stating the facts). It is not claimed that appellant furnished any supplies to appellee Wells, the subtenant, to .enable him to make or gather the crop raised on the lands sublet to him by Spellman, appellant's tenant, and the testimony shows that the sub tenant paid to appellant the rent due for the lands cultivated by him.
The landlord has a lien upon all the crops grown on the demised premises in any year for the rent that shall accrue for such year, without regard to whether the crop is to be raised by the tenant or not, and regardless of any agreement between the tenant and subtenant for rent. A person subrenting lands from the tenant, however, can only be held responsible for payment to the landlord for rent of such lands as are cultivated and occupied by him. Section 6892, Crawford & Moses' Digest; Jacobson v. Atkins, 103 Ark. 91, 146 S. W. 133; Storthz v. Smith, 109 Ark. 552; Embry v. Neighbors, 139 Ark. 313, 213 S. W. 741.
It is not claimed that appellant, the landlord, furnished any supplies to appellee, the subtenant, to enable him to make the crop, nor is it disputed that the subtenant paid the rent due the landlord from the tenant for the lands occupied and cultivated by him, which discharged his entire liability to the landlord and released his crop from the landlord's lien.
Neither could the chattel mortgage given by appellee, Spellman, on all the crops to be produced on the lands rented by him from appellant, constitute' a lien on the crops raised by the subtenant on that portion of the lands sublet to him, for supplies furnished by the landlord to the tenant, the tenant having no interest in such crop for more than the pro rata amount of the rent due the landlord therefor, which it is unlawful for him to collect even before final settlement with the landlord. Sections 6894-96, Crawford & Moses' Digest.
It follows therefore that no error was committed in the rendition of the decree, which is affirmed.