Alexander v. Zeigler

• Citation: 36 So. 536,84 Miss. 560
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Decision Date: 02 May 1904
• Parties: PETER M. M. ALEXANDER v. POSTEL M. ZEIGLER

36 So. 536

84 Miss. 560

PETER M. M. ALEXANDER v. POSTEL M. ZEIGLER

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 2, 1904

FROM the circuit court of Holmes county. HON. A. MCC. KIMBROUGH Judge.

Alexander the appellant, was the plaintiff, and Zeigler, the appellee defendant in the court below. From a judgment in defendant's favor the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The facts were:

Zeigler was the owner of a farm, and in the year 1902 contracted With one Will Horton to make a crop on shares; Zeigler to furnish the land, team, and farm implements, and to feed the team and Horton to furnish the labor to make and gather the crop the crop to be equally divided between them. Lewis & Herman, who were merchants, took a deed of trust on Horton's crop, and furnished him with supplies. Appellant, Alexander, was made trustee in the deed of trust. The deed of trust was given on the 17th day of January, 1902. The supplies were advanced after the middle of March following. Horton made six bales of cotton, and Zeigler took possession of four of them.

This suit was an action in replevin brought by Alexander, the trustee, to recover possession of one bale of the cotton. There was a judgment in the lower court for defendant, upon a peremptory instruction, after the evidence for plaintiff had been excluded. The evidence in the case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. It is contended for appellee that the evidence failed to identify the cotton levied on as being part of the cotton raised by Will Horton. It is further contended that, if appellant acquired any rights at all to the cotton, it was under the trust deed, and that he became either assignee of a lien, as defined in § 2682, Code 1892, or the owner of a half interest in the crop raised by Horton, and consequently a tenant in common with appellee, and in either event replevin would not lie. It is also claimed that the mortgage under which appellant claims title to the cotton is void because at the time it was executed the mortgagor's share to be produced did not have such potential existence as to be a valid subject of a mortgage at law. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled.

Reversed and remanded.

Noel, Pepper & Elmore, for appellant.

Horton was a tenant to Zeigler and had such an interest in the leased premises as to sustain a deed of trust upon the crops to be thereafter grown, even though not planted.

Whether the relationship was that of landlord and tenant, or otherwise, the deed of trust was valid as between the parties, and as Zeigler has proven no claim in himself to the property, a valid agreement between the parties would bind him.

Regardless of the relationship of the parties, Zeigler having induced Lewis & Herman to make advances to Horton by his agreement to waive all claim on one-half of the crop, and having received one-half, three bales, was estopped from disputing the rights of appellant to the bale of cotton constituting a part of the other half.

A contract similar to this, where one party furnished the land, team, and farming implements, and the other the farm labor, and each was to receive one-half of the crop, was held by this court to constitute the relationship of landlord and tenant. Schlicht v. Callicott, 76 Miss. 487.

Crops to be grown by the grantor or his employes during the year, on land of which he is in possession, either as owner, or by the consent of the owner, preparatory to making a crop, have such a potential existence as to be a valid subject of mortgage. Russell v. Stevens, 70 Miss. 685; Everman v. Robb, 52 Miss. 653; Stadeker v. Loeb, 67 Miss. 200; McCown v. Mayer, 65 Miss. 537.

Whatever the relationship may be termed, as between the two, and as against all others who have not acquired, by contract, valid rights to the property, the deed of trust on the property in controversy is valid. Sillers v. Lester, 48 Miss. 513; White v. Thomas, 52 Miss. 49; Davis v. Marx, 55 Miss. 376.

Three witnesses testify, uncontradicted, that the deed of trust in evidence was given upon the assurance of appellee that he would assert no claim to the property incumbered, one-half of the crop produced by Will Horton, his share, and this is the last bale of that share.

The elementary principles of estoppel bring this case within the rules. Estoppel arises from any act or declaration, intended or calculated to mislead another, and on which that other has relied, and has so far acted, or refrained from acting, as that injury will befall him if the truth of the act or declaration be denied. Staton v. Bryant, 55 Miss. 261; Davis v. Bowmar, 55 Miss. 671.

Tackett & Smith, for appellee.

If appellant acquired any rights at all under his deed of trust he became either the assignee of an employe's lien, as defined in sec. 2682 of the code, or the owner of a one-half interest in the crop raised by Horton, and consequently a tenant in common of same with appellee. In either...