Ball v. Citizens' Bank of Rome

• Decision Date: 18 January 1915
• Docket Number: 146.
• Citation: 84 S.E. 122,143 Ga. 55
• Parties: BALL v. CITIZENS' BANK OF ROME ET AL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

84 S.E. 122

143 Ga. 55

BALL v. CITIZENS' BANK OF ROME ET AL.

No. 146.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 18, 1915

Syllabus by the Court.

The owner of a certain tract of land, on January 24, 1911 entered into a contract leasing the land to certain tenants for a period of three years, commencing January 1, 1912. As provided in that contract, notes for the annual rent of the premises were given by the tenants. On May 12, 1911 (that is subsequently to the execution of the rent contract and prior to the commencement of the period for which the premises were leased), the owner executed a warranty deed containing a power of sale, conveying to a creditor of hers, for the purpose of securing a debt, the lands rented, as stated above. On July 12, 1912, and before the maturity of the crops on said rented land for that year, by virtue of the power of sale, the grantee in the deed conveyed the land to one Charles Ball; the latter thereby acquiring all the right and title to the land of the owner first referred to. Prior to the execution of the warranty deed containing the power of sale, the owner of the land, the payee in the rent notes transferred the notes to the Citizens' Bank of Rome, the defendant in error in this case. In October, 1912, the tenants, apprehending that Ball, the plaintiff in error, the purchaser of the land, would insist upon collecting the rent for the year 1912, and that the bank, the holder of the rent notes, would claim the right to enforce the same for the rent, filed a petition for injunction and interpleader against the plaintiff in error and the defendant in error offering to turn the rent over to the clerk of the superior court or any depositary designated by the court. The parties were required to interplead; and, upon the hearing of the issue made between the bank and Ball, the court determined the issue in favor of the bank, holding in effect that Ball was not entitled to enforce his demands for rent, and that the money paid into court as rent, or so much thereof as was necessary, should be applied to the extinguishment of the claim of the bank. Held, that the plaintiff in error, who became the owner of the rented land before the maturity of the crops, was entitled to recover the rent, and that while, under the provisions of the Civil Code of 1910, § 3343, relating to the transfer of certain liens, the bank was in as good a position to enforce the special landlord's lien as was the...