Du Rant v. Home Bank of Barnwell

• Citation: 124 S.E. 12,129 S.C. 283
• Decision Date: 08 July 1924
• Docket Number: 11541.
• Parties: DU RANT v. HOME BANK OF BARNWELL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

124 S.E. 12

129 S.C. 283

DU RANT v. HOME BANK OF BARNWELL.

No. 11541.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 8, 1924

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; N. G Evans, Special Judge.

Action by Will Du Rant against the Home Bank of Barnwell. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Holman & Boulware and V. S. Owens, all of Barnwell, for appellant.

J. O Patterson, Jr., of Barnwell, and J. A. Kennedy, of Williston for respondent.

COTHRAN J.

Action for damages for the conversion of certain crops, seized under a crop mortgage given by the husband of the owner of certain lands. The plaintiff, a share cropper of the husband, claimed that the crop seized had been set off to him as his share, or that he had a statutory lien as such share cropper or laborer upon it, for his share. Verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

The facts were these: During the year 1920, one Josephine Brown was the owner of a tract of land in Barnwell county. It was cultivated, as was natural, by her husband, Ben Brown. He entered into a share cropper agreement with the plaintiff, Du Rant, covering 30 acres of the tract. The agreement was verbal, in the presence of witnesses, entered into on January 3, 1920, and under it Du Rant was to cultivate the farm and receive one-half of the proceeds for his labor and attention. On January 26th, Ben Brown gave the defendant bank a mortgage upon the crops on the entire tract, and had Josephine Brown to release in its favor her claim for rent, as security for money advanced. In the fall the crop raised on the 30 acres consisted of 8 bales of cotton, 300 bushels of corn, 1,200 bundles of fodder, 4 bushels of potatoes, and 24 bushels of peas. The first 4 bales ginned were sold by Ben Brown in Augusta, and the entire proceeds appropriated by him. The fifth bale was turned over to another bank, which applied $40 of the proceeds to a debt of the plaintiff, and paid the remainder to the defendant bank upon Brown's obligations. The sixth bale was sold and the proceeds divided equally between Brown and the plaintiff. The seventh and eighth bales were seized by the defendant, sold, and the proceeds applied to the obligations of Brown, together with the cotton seed, the corn, and the fodder, all of which at the time was in the possession of the plaintiff. A few days prior to the seizure of this property by the bank, Brown absconded. After he had absconded, and before the seizure by the bank, Josephine Brown went to the plaintiff's place and turned over to him what was left, that which was seized by the Bank afterwards, as his share of the entire crop. (The bank excepts to the admission of this evidence; but, as will be seen, the question of a division of the crop is not material.)

Much of the evidence and of the argument is addressed to the issue whether or not the crop had been actually divided between Brown and Du Rant, at the time of the seizure by the bank, a matter entirely irrelevant and inconsequential. The question in the case is whether or not Du Rant had been paid for his labor; if not, under the statute, he had a lien next in priority to the landlord's lien for rent, upon all of the crop raised on the place, regardless of the question of a division, and if the bank seized any of it, and appropriated the proceeds to its own use, it is liable as for a conversion to the plaintiff ther...