Case Name: WILMERING v. HINKLE
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1916-09-12
Citations: 61 Okla. 82
Docket Number: No. 7297
Parties: WILMERING v. HINKLE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 82–83

Head Matter:
WILMERING v. HINKLE.
No. 7297
Opinion Filed Sept. 12, 1916.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1916.
(160 Pac. 60.)
1. Landlord and Tenant — Rent — Lien— Requisites.
The statutory lien given to the landlord is (he, crops grown upon the rented farm exists independently of a seizure by -attachment or other process.
2. Same — Rent—Lien—Priority.
Tlie statutory lien given to tlie landlord in paramount to the rights of one who purchases from the tenant a crop which is yet upon the leased premises, as the purchaser takes same with constructive notice of the landlord’s rights and subject to his lieu.
(Syllabus by Day, G.)
Error from County Court, (’anadian County.
Action by W. W. Hinkle against William Kirne, defendant, and Henry Wihnering in-lerpleader. Judgment for plaintiff, and in-terpleader brings error.
Affirmed.
F. AAr. Fisher, for plaintiff in error.
James A. Cowan, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
DAY, C.
AY. Alr. Hinkle sued AVilliam Ivime in the county court for a balance due and unpaid for rent for the year '1914, and at the same time and in the same action sued out a writ of attachment to enforce his lien against the crops grown on the farm during said year.
It appears that summons was duly served and the' writ of attachment duly executed, save that the officer left the crop consisting of oats in a bin, and baled oat straw and some corn on the premises and in the possession of the defendant Kime.
Plaintiff in error. Henry AA'ilmering filed an interplea claiming said property by purchase from Kime without notice of tlm attachment and without notice of the lien of the plaintiff Hinkle. A jury being waived, the cause ivas tried to the court,- and the defendant Kime defaulting, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against him. The issues between the interpleader and plaintiff were then tried, resulting in judgment against the interpleader, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
Plaintiff in error contends that the levy of the attachment was ineffectual for the reason that the attached propertv was left in the possession of the defendant. Conceding, without deciding, that the contention of plaintiff in error in this regard is correct, (hat question is not material here.
The undisputed facts disclose that Kime was the tenant of Hinkle and owed him a balance on rent due and unpaid, and -that the oats, corn, and oat straw was grown and stored on the premises during the year 1914, and during said year and while such property was thus stored, plaintiff in error, while present in person, on the premises purchased same from the tenant, Kime.
Section 3806, Rev. Raws, 1910. provides:
"Any rent due for farming land shall he a lien on the crop growing or made on the promises. Such lien mav he enforced by action and attachment therein, as hereinafter provided.''
This section of the statute was adopted from Kansas, and was construed by the Supreme Court of that state prior to its adoption here in the case of Scully v. Porter, 57 Kan. 322, 46 Pac. 313. In that case, under a state of facts similar to the instant case, it was held that the landlord had a lien upon the crop, which continued until the rent was paid or until the lien was waived, relinquished, lost or otherwise divested, and that the lien exists by force of the statute independently of the levy of an attachment; and so long as the crops remain upon the premises the lien will prevail over the claim of a purchaser. And toward the conclusion of the opinion, the following language is used:
"The statutory lien given to the landlord is paramount to the rights of any one who purchases from the tenant a crop which is yet upon the leased premises."
Under the authority of the Kansas case, supra, plaintiff in error having purchased the oats, corn and oat straw grown and yet on the premises, took same with constructive notice of the landlord's rights and subject to his lien.
Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.