Case Name: GARDNER v. JARRETT ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1922-09-01
Citations: 121 S.C. 338
Docket Number: 11010
Parties: GARDNER v. JARRETT ET AL.
Judges: Mr. Justice Fraser, concurs.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 338–345

Head Matter:
11010
GARDNER v. JARRETT ET AL.
(113 S. E., 493)
1. Reference — Error to Refuse Reference of Bciuitaele Issues.— Where pleadings raised issues which could not be determined without the aid of the Court in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, it was error to refuse a reference as to those issues. (Per Gary, C. J., and Fraser, J.)
2. Frauds, Statute of — Agreement to Stand Good for Share Cropeer Held Valid Original Undertaking. — An agreement whereby plaintiff .agreed to make advances to a share cropper on defendant’s land, in consideration that defendant would stand good for him, constituted an original undertaking, on which defendant was liable. (Per Cothran, J.)
3. Landlord and Tenant — Landowner, Agreeing to Permit Share Cropper to Mortgage Latter’s Interest for Advances, Estopped to Deny Validity of Mortgage. — Where owner of land rented on shares agreed with plaintiff that share cropper might mortgage his interest to plaintiff as security for advances and that owner would release any claim he had on share cropper’s interest, except for fertilizers, owner would be estopped from disputing plaintiff’s right to a lien on share cropper’s interest, and an appropriation by owner of share cropper’s interest would make owner pro tanto responsible to plaintiff, notwithstanding that a share cropper is ordinarily incapable of mortgaging his interest. (Per Cothran, J.)
Before Wilson, J., Cherokee. Fall Term, 1921.
Reversed and remanded.
Action by Lillie M. Gardner against Ariel Jarrett and Noah Lewis. Judgment for plaintiff against defendant Lewis. From- order refusing plaintiff’s motion for a new trial; and from an order requiring plaintiff to turn over to Jarrett all crops seized, the plaintiff appeals.
The complaint is as follows:
The plaintiff, complaining of the defendants, alleges:
1. That the plaintiff is a merchant in this state and county, engaged in selling goods and merchandise.
2. That the defendant Noah Lewis is now, and was at the times hereinafter mentioned, a laborer or 'share crop per, cultivating lands of his codefendant, Ariel Jarrett, in Morgan township of this county, under a contract to receive half of all crops raised by him on the said farm or lands of Ariel Jarrett, consisting of about 23 acres, and which is described in the chattel mortgage herein set out. -
3. That on May 8, 1920, the defendants entered into a contract with plaintiff whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell and deliver to the defendant Noah Lewis food and eatables, and other supplies usually necessary to be had in the making and cultivation of crops, and in order to induce the plaintiff to furnish and sell such supplies to the said Noah Lewis agreed and promised that, if the plaintiff would furnish the said Noah Lewis supplies for cultivating said crops, for the same, and further agreed, as an inducement to the plaintiff to furnish his said cropper, that he would release all of his interest in the crops of the said Noah Lewis, except so much‘as might be necessary to pay for fertilizers used in the cultivation of said crops. The said defendant Ariel Jarrett also agreed as a part of the same transaction that he would sign his release if the plaintiff would take a chattel mortgage from the said Noah Lewis on his half of the crops to be raised by him on the said lands of Ariel Jarrett.
4. That relying on the promises and the agreements as above stated, the plaintiff agreed to^ furnish the said Noah Lewis with supplies for this year, and did do so, as shown by the itemized statement which is hereto attached and made a part of this complaint, and did have the said Noah Lewis to execute to her a chattel mortgage covering his one-half of all crops raised this year on the said lands, except so much as might be necessary to pay for guano and fertilizers, as above stated, and but for the agreement on the part of the defendant Ariel Jarrett to stand good for and pay said account the same would not have been furnished by the plaintiff.'
5. That the amount in supplies so furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant Noah Lewis, under and by virtue of said agreement, is the amount of $107.10, less credits of $7.66, together with interest from October 15, 1920, at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum until paid in full, which agreement is set out in the note and chattel mortgage executed and delivered to the plaintiff on May 8, 1920.
6. That the defendant Noah Lewis cultivated and raised crops of cotton, corn, peas, and other crops on said lands, the amount of which is not definitely known to the plaintiff, but he and his codefendant, Ariel Jarrett, have, as plaintiff is informed and believes, some cotton, corn, and other crops left of the value of $150.
7. ’ That the defendants have both refused to pay any part of the said debt, or to deliver to the plaintiff any part of the said crops, but have disposed of and are disposing of said crops with the intent and purpose of defeating the plaintiff’s lien and to defeat the collection of the debt justly due to the plaintiff by the defendants.
Wherefore the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants for the sum of $99.44, with 8 per cent, interest thereon from October 15, 1920, and 10 per cent, additional as provided in the said note and mortgage as attorney’s fees in case of suit or collection by an attorney, and for the recovery of said crops.
The answer of Noah Lewis is as follows:
The defendant Noah Lewis, answering the complaint, says:
1. That he has not sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 1 of the complaint.
2. Further answering, this defendant says that he executed and delivered to the plaintiff a chattel mortgage on his interest in the crops which he was cultivating on the lands of Ariel Jarrett during the year 1920, for $150, the consideration therefor being for supplies, etc., tó be advanced and sold to him by the plaintiff during the year.
Further answering, this defendant says:
3. That he does not know anything, nor has he any information, about any contract or understanding whereby his codefendant, Ariel Jarrett, would release his interest in said crops for the benefit of this plaintiff. '
• 4. That all allegations not herein admitted or explained are denied.
The answer of Ariel Jarrett is as follows:
The defendant Ariel Jarrett, answering the complaint herein, says:
1. That he has not sufficient information to admit of •deny the allegations of paragraph 1 of the complaint, and demands proof of same.
2. That he denies all of the other allegations of the complaint.
Further answering, this defendant says:
3. That his codefendant, Noah Lewis, contracted to work a share crop with him for the year 1920, under the usual terms of a share cropper, and to receive oné-half thereof, after the said Noah Lewis should have paid to this defendant all debts due and owing by him to this defendant, the amount due him to be determined by a settlement after all of the crops have been gathered and put into marketable shape, that out of all the crops made and gath•ered so far his codefendant is still indebted to him for support and money advanced to him for the purpose of making and gathering of the crops which he was to cultivate under his contract, and there has been no settlement between this defendant and his codefendant; that all of said crops which have been taken by the sheriff are the property of this defendant.
Wherefore this defendant prays that said complaint be dismissed, with costs.
Statement oe Suppeies
April 7, 1920, articles of food, etc. $ 8 00
April 13th to 28th, inclusive... 18 47'
May 1st to 24th, inclusive.-. 45 31
Bal. of supplies after June 1st. -. 35 32
.By credits, Sept. Oct., Nov., Dec.$7 66 7 66
Balance ...•.... $99 44
Exhibit — Chattel Mortgage.
The usual form of chattel mortgage on crops was executed by Noah Lewis to Lillie M. Gardner, dated May 8, 1920, due in the fall, and for $., conveying Lewis one-half of the crops to be raised on Ariel Jarrett’s land in 1920, less amount due for fertilizers. It contained the usual seizure and sale clause. It was recorded June 1, 1920.
Messrs. Butler & Hall, for appellant,
cite: Valid assignment may be made of future earnings: 4 Cyc., 12,. 17, 18. No particular form of assignment necessary: 4 Cyc., 37. Share cropper may assign interest in future earnings: 14 S. C., 112. Verdict would be res adjudicata of all issues arising in the cause: 17 S. C., 40, 52 S. C., 174, .77 S. C., 493; 5 Strob. L., 141, 84 S. C., 178. Plaintiff entitled to relief in equity even though he has¡ failed in law action: 45 S. C., 667; 55 S. C., 490; 50 S. C., 428; 102 S. C., 499; 103 S. C., 243; 107 S. C., 142; 107 S. C., 322; 108 S. C., 206; 114 S. C.,- 353; 110 S. E-, 806. Plaintiff subrogated to Lewis’ right to have an accounting: 87 S. C., 369; 117 S. C., 403.
Mr. G. W. SpEER, for respondent, Jarrett:
No citations.
September 1, 1922.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary.
In order to understand the issues involved, it will be necessary to set out the pleadings in the report of the case.
The first question to be determined is whether there was error on the part of his Honor,- the presiding Judge, in refusing the motion for an order of reference. All the issues were submitted to the jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, against the defendant Noah Lewis alone, for the sum of $99.44, and the plaintiff appealed.
The following authorities show that there was error in refusing the order of reference: Rainwater v. Bank of Cheraw, 108 S. C., 206, 93 S. E., 770; Id., 114 S. C., 353, 103 S. E., 587; Smith v. Union, etc., Ins. Co., 112 S. C., 356, 99 S. E., 830; Parker v. Victoria Real Estate Co., 105 S. C., 375, 89 S. E., 1068..
Having reached this conclusion, the other questions become merely academic.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Fraser, concurs.
Mr. Justice Marion, concurs in result.