Brewer v. Chappell

• Decision Date: 22 October 1888
• Citation: 7 S.E. 670,101 N.C. 251
• Parties: BREWER et al. v. CHAPPELL et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

7 S.E. 670

101 N.C. 251

BREWER et al. v. CHAPPELL et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 22, 1888

Appeal from superior court, Wake county; AVERY, Judge.

Action of claim and delivery brought by J. M. Brewer & Co. against H. R. Chappell and L. Woodlief. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Code, § 1799, declares that a person advancing money on supplies, pursuant to a written contract to one engaged in cultivating the soil, shall have a lien on the crop produced superior to all other liens, existing or otherwise.

T. R Purnell, for appellants.

N. Y Gulley, for appellees.

MERRIMON J.

The parties agreed upon and submitted to the court for its judgment a statement of facts of which the following is a copy: "(1) That on the 8th day of February, 1887, defendant Chappell was seized and possessed of a tract of land in Wake county on which defendant Woodlief held registered mortgages amounting to the value of the land, executed prior to that date; (2) that on the 8th day of February, 1887, defendant Chappell executed to plaintiffs, Brewer & Co., a lien bond, which was duly registered, for supplies to be furnished Chappell during the year 1887, to be used in making the crop on Chappell's land, and plaintiffs furnished supplies to the amount of $100, one-half before and the balance after the registration of the deed hereinafter mentioned to L. Woodlief; (3) that in January, 1887, defendant Woodlief notified Chappell of his purpose to foreclose the mortgages, the, power of sale having become absolute by this time, held by said Woodlief, and on March 23, 1887, Chappell and wife executed a deed in fee for said land, which was duly registered April 7, 1887; and immediately thereafter Woodlief rented said land to Chappell for one-fourth of the crop, and as landlord furnished him with a horse and supplies to make the crop on said land, amounting to $300; (4) the crop on said land was planted after the execution of the deed to Woodlief, and the establishment of the relation of landlord and tenant between Wood lief and Chappell, and the three bales of cotton, to recover which this action was brought, taken by Woodlief, were a part of the crop made on the land as above stated, and was not sufficient to pay Woodlief's claim for rent and advancements; (5) it is agreed plaintiffs are entitled to the personal property, and, if Woodlief is entitled to three bales of cotton under his claim as landlord, plaintiffs shall recover no cost of L. Woodlief; (6) that the value of the whole of said crop did not exceed three hundred dollars." After argument the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants, having excepted, appealed to this court.

The statement of facts above set forth is not so explicit and orderly as it should be, but it sufficiently appears from it that the plaintiffs agreed in writing with the defendant Chappell, on the 8th day of February, 1887, (which writing was duly recorded,) to advance to him the sum of $100 to enable him to produce a crop during the year 1887 on the land mentioned, that he was about to cultivate; the purpose being to create a lien on the crops to be produced in favor of the plaintiffs, as allowed by the statute. Code, § 1799. At the time that agreement was made the defendant Chappell was the mortgagor, and his co-defendant, Woodliff, was the mortgagee of the land mentioned, and the condition thereof was broken. Thereafter, on the 23d day of March, 1887, the mortgagor and his wife conveyed his equity of redemption in the land to the mortgagee, and he became the absolute owner of it, and at once leased it to Chappell for the year 1887; the latter agreeing to pay part of the crop as rent, and his landlord advanced to him $300 to enable him to make the crop. At the time the agreement mentioned was made, the mortgage referred to was registered, and the plaintiffs therefore had notice of it. At and before that time the defendant Woodliff was the owner of the land as mortgagee. The defendant Chappell,...