Court Opinion

ID: 9812803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:48:30.133353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:38.834595
License: Public Domain

OuaRK, J.,
dissenting. The statute under which the defendant is indicted, Code, sec. 1759, prohibits any lessee or cropper to remove any part of the cropi “without the consent of the lessor or his assignees, and without giving him or his agent five days’ notice of such intended removal, and before satisfying all liens held by the lessor or his assignees, on said crop.” This statute, passed in 1876-N7, is a most important one to the agricultural interests of the State. Indeed there is not one probably whose preservation in its integrity is more important to our farmers, whether owning or renting land. It was passed after careful deliberation and the fullest consideration in 1876-N7, and, with a slight modification in 1883, has been retained, amid a:ll imitations of parties during the ■quarter of a century since.
The defendant does not allege payment. That would be a ■single issue, and would at once, if found in his favor, he an acquittal. But he sets up not payment, hut alleged damages for breach of contract by way of counter-claim and set-off. Those matters can not he a “satisfaction” of lessor’s lien, unless they had been either agreed to. by him, or adjudged in a civil action to he so applied. Till then they are merely connter-elaims for unliquidated and unallowed damages, and can not he set up as a defence of “satisfaction” in a criminal proceeding. To permit this to he done would he to destroy the efficacy of the criminal proceeding which the General As*697sembly deemed essential for the protection of the land owners of the State, and which no- succeeding General Assembly has thought it ought to impair or repeal. Section 1754 emphasizes this remedy by guaranteeing the landlord’s lien till his rents and advances are “paid.'’ Section 1756 further particularly points out the lessee’s remedy when there is, as here, a controversy between him and the lessor. It is by application to a Justice of the Peace if the amount in controversy is under $200, or to the Superior Court if over that sum. If there is an appeal from the judgment, this section permits the lessee or cropper to retain and use the crop upon giving proper bond. If he fails to do so, the lessor can take the crop upon giving bond. If neither gives bond, the crop remains in cus-todia legis, and if perishable is to be sold and proceeds held by the Court to abide the result of the action. If the defendant had pursued that course, as required bv the statute, this proceeding would not be pending. But to allow him to take the law into his hands, adjudge for himself that his counter-claim or set-off is good, and thus throw the statement of the account into a criminal action, would be contrary to the express language of the statute, and would deprive the lessor of the very protection the statute was enacted to give him, i. e., the security of so much of the crop raised on his land as is .equal to the rent unless the lessee or cropper (usually irresponsible pecuniarily) should give bond to abide the civil judgment upon the controverted matters.
In rejecting the evidence here offered by defendant to show damages for breach of contract to repair buildings and shortage in land agreed to be rented for a lump sum, there was no ■error, and none in the charge. State v. Williams, 106 N. C., 646. The possession of the landlord was not-transferred to the lessee by sending the cotton to be ginned.
No error.
CooK, J. I concur in the dissenting opinion.