Leslie v. Hinson

• Decision Date: 10 January 1888
• Parties: LESLIE v. HINSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 443

83 Ala. 266

LESLIE v. HINSON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 10, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Lowndes county; JAMES W. LAPSEY, Judge.

This was an action brought by Joseph L. Hinson against W. W Leslie for the recovery of a part of a crop sold to the defendant, on which the plaintiff had a mortgage. On the twenty-third day of January, 1886, W. P. Rhodes and C. K Rhodes executed a mortgage to the plaintiff for the sum of $208 to secure a note given by them to the plaintiff for advances he had given the mortgagors, and was to let them have, during the year. This mortgage was filed for record on the first day of February, 1886; but the evidence was that it was not actually recorded until June 24, 1886. The mortgage was to become due on the first day of October, 1886. On the sixteenth day of January, 1886, Rhodes rented a tract of land from one Leatherwood, went into possession, and it was upon this land that the crop, a part of which is now in controversy, was raised. It was shown that on the day when the lands were rented by Leatherwood to Rhodes, that Leatherwood, W. P. Rhodes, and defendant, Leslie, were all at Leslie's store; that it was agreed between them that Leatherwood should not make any advances to Rhodes to enable him and his brother to make a crop; but that Leslie should make such advances to them as they would need to make a crop and that Leatherwood would turn over the lease of Rhodes to the defendant, and that he (Leslie) would become responsible to Leatherwood for the rent of the lands by Rhodes. And it was further shown that, following out this agreement, the defendant, Leslie, did pay to Leatherwood the rent for the land; and that it was agreed by Rhodes that Leslie should have a lien on the crop raised by them to secure him (Leslie) for paying the rent, and for the advances he should make to them during the year. There was no material conflict in the evidence, and the court charged the jury in writing, at the instance of the plaintiff, "that if they believe the evidence, they must find for the plaintiff." To the giving of this charge the defendant excepted. The defendant asked the court to give the following charge in writing "That if they believed the evidence, the law was with the defendant, and they should so find." The court refused to give this charge, and the defendant excepted. The giving of the charge requested by the plaintiff, and the refusal of the charge asked by the defendant, are now assigned as error.

Watts & Son, for appellant.

W. R. Houghton, contra

STONE C.J.

Hinson's mortgage was deposited with the judge of probate for registration February 1, 1886, but not actually recorded until June 24, 1886. The registration took effect as constructive notice from the time of the deposit in the probate office. Code 1876, § 2149; Code 1886, § 1793; Mims v. Mims, 35 Ala. 23; Turner v. McFee, 61 Ala. 468; Heflin v. Slay, 78 Ala. 180. A mortgage of an unplanted crop does not convey the legal title, but it conveys an equity, which clothes the mortgagee with the right to maintain an action on the case in his own name against any one who sells the crop thus mortgaged, and receives and converts the proceeds. Thompson v. Powell, 77 Ala. 391; Kelly v. Longshore, 78 Ala. 203; Thornton v. Strauss, 79 Ala. 164; Barnett v. Warren, 82 Ala. 557, 2 South. Rep. 457 True, the landlord's lien for rent and advances dominates all claims...