Court Opinion

ID: 9827879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:54:19.111172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:38.210602
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant complains that the priority of the landlord’s lien asserted -by appellant over the chattel mortgage lien asserted by appellee was involved in the suit, and that there is no finding • of the trial court upon this question. .While appellant’s pleadings mentioned that he was the landlord of Stephenson, yet he did not pray that his lien be foreclosed. Moreover, in his testimony he expressly stated that he was not relying on a landlord's lien to support his -right to hold one-half of the cotton. He testified:
“I am not relying on a landlord’s lien for holding this cotton. I am relying on an agreement that I had with Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir; I sold supplies to Mr. Stephenson in February last year, but I did not furnish Mr. Stephenson with any groceries during the year 1923.”
The chattel mortgage lien asserted by ap-pellee was against the crops raised during the year 1923. Therefore appellant had no landlord’s lien for advances made or supplies-furnished for the year 1923.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.