Burgess v. Hyatt

• Decision Date: 26 April 1923
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 560.
• Citation: 96 So. 222,209 Ala. 472
• Parties: BURGESS v. HYATT.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

96 So. 222

209 Ala. 472

BURGESS v. HYATT.

8 Div. 560.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 26, 1923

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Action by Samuel L. Hyatt against R. E. Burgess. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Reversed and remanded.

Rayburn Wright & Rayburn, of Guntersville, for appellant.

John A Lusk & Son, of Guntersville, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

The relation existing between the plaintiff and the defendant was clearly that of landlord and tenant, since all that plaintiff furnished was land. Code, § 4742.

Plaintiff seeks to subject to the lien given by the statute certain personal property furnished by him to defendant, in the year 1918, as advances for making that year's crop. At the beginning of 1919, defendant owed a balance of $256.96 on the advances made for 1918, according to plaintiff's testimony, and during 1919 defendant paid all he owed on the stock except $60. He must, therefore, have reduced the balance of the debt for the 1918 advances by at least $150 since that balanced included $150 for the two mules.

We cannot analyze all the testimony, but the foregoing brief and partial statement will illustrate what we conceive to be the error of the trial court in the judgment rendered for plaintiff, the effect of which is to declare and enforce a statutory lien for advances made in 1919 on specific articles advanced in 1918, upon which there was a balance due of apparently not more than $106, approximately.

Section 4734 of the Code gives a lien on crops grown on rented lands for rent and advances, "and also on all articles advanced, and on all property purchased with money advanced, or obtained by barter in exchange for articles advanced, for the aggregate price or value of such articles and property."

The lien thus given is a specific lien on specific property. But, while it is imposed upon all of the property in common to the extent of the aggregate amount of the advances, we think it is clear that the lien upon articles advanced for the making of any particular crop is limited to the price or value of the articles advanced that year, and cannot be extended to and increased by the price or value of articles advanced to make a crop in any succeeding year.

This is the natural meaning of the language used, and, in the absence...