Eades v. Simpson

• Decision Date: 29 January 1917
• Docket Number: 122
• Citation: 191 S.W. 953,127 Ark. 162
• Parties: EADES v. SIMPSON
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

191 S.W. 953

127 Ark. 162

EADES v. SIMPSON

No. 122

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 29, 1917

Appeal from Van Buren Circuit Court; John I. Worthington, Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

J. A Eades, for appellant.

1. All the instructions given for plaintiff were erroneous; those refused for defendant correctly state the law. The mortgage was indefinite in terms and could not be explained by oral testimony. The cotton was grown on Government land and no occupant has a right of property in the crop. 14 Ark. 282.

2. The cotton described in the mortgage and that in controversy are entirely different. 54 Ark. 91. Appellant was an innocent purchaser. 41 Id. 74. Parol evidence was not admissible. 43 Ark. 352; 80 N.W. 813; 47 Id. 127; 10 R. C. L. 215-240; 50 Ark. 393; 64 Id. 650; 30 N.E 346. The mortgage was not sufficient to put appellant even on inquiry.

S. W. Woods, for appellee.

1. Description in the mortgage, taken in connection with the relations of the parties and the familiarity of the appellant with the property and its conditions, were sufficient to put him on notice of the mortgage. 14 Ark. 282 has no application and has been overruled. 5 R. C. L. 401, § 24, and p. 422, § 53; 39 Ark. 394; 109 Id. 552; 51 Id. 410; 54 Id. 158; 52 Id. 278, 371; 51 Id. 218. It was grown on the Bob Earl land and in the Bob Earl field.

2. The evidence supports the verdict. 53 Ark. 75, 327; 70 Id. 136. Substantial justice has been done. 34 Ark. 93; 64 Id. 238.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is a suit in replevin to recover possession of a small quantity of cotton. The plaintiff Simpson claims title to the cotton in controversy under a mortgage from one Hightower, who cultivated the crop and gathered it. Defendant Eades purchased the cotton from Hightower and claims that the crop from which it was gathered was not described in the mortgage to Simpson. Hightower's mortgage to Simpson described the property as a crop of corn and cotton "amounting to twelve acres to be grown on the farm of Bob Earl in Craig Township," in Van Buren County. Hightower was a tenant on the Bob Earl farm, and, as before stated, raised and gathered the cotton in controversy.

The evidence shows that the crop was raised within an inclosure known as the Bob Earl field, but that this particular portion of the crop was raised on land the title to which turns out to be in the United States Government. The Government tract is adjoining the Earl land and was entered as a homestead by one Marchbanks in May, 1915, a few weeks after the execution of the Hightower mortgage to Simpson. Marchbanks caused the line of the tract to be surveyed in September, 1915, and it was discovered from the survey that the line ran through the Earl field so as to cut off five or six acres of the cultivated land which had been occupied as the Earl farm. The possession of Hightower was not, however, disturbed, and he gathered the crop and sold it. The line between Craig Township and Liberty Township runs along the boundary between the Earl tract and the Marchbanks tract, so the new survey shows the land occupied by Hightower to be partly in Liberty Township, instead of Craig Township as described in the mortgage.

It is contended that under this state of the case, the description in the mortgage was insufficient to cover the portion of Hightower's crop which was raised on the Marchbanks land and that the purchaser of the crop is not chargeable with notice of the mortgage. The following rule, stated by this court many years ago, has been steadily adhered to: "It is not necessary that the property should be so described as to be capable of identification by the written recital, or by the name used to designate it in the mortgage. A description which will enable third persons, aided by inquiries which the instrument itself suggests, to...