Farrow v. Wooley & Jordan

• Decision Date: 14 February 1907
• Citation: 149 Ala. 373,43 So. 144
• Parties: FARROW v. WOOLEY & JORDAN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

43 So. 144

149 Ala. 373

FARROW v. WOOLEY & JORDAN.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 14, 1907

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

Action by Wooley & Jordan against T. L. Farrow. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The subject of the controversy, together with all the facts necessary to an understanding of the opinion, sufficiently appear from the opinion. A number of charges were asked and refused to the defendant, but the only one necessary to be here set out is charge 6, and is as follows: "The court charges the jury that at the time this cotton was ginned it belonged solely to John P. Tillman, and before plaintiffs can recover they must prove that they bought this cotton from Tillman, and the burden of proving this with reasonable certainty is upon the plaintiff."

The following charges were given at the request of the plaintiff "(A) The court charges the jury that the fact that this case was tried heretofore on a different claim of title cannot be looked to by the jury for the purpose of discrediting the claim of title set up by plaintiffs in this trial. Plaintiffs may set up different claims to the cotton involved in this suit. (B) The court charges the jury that if they find from the evidence that the four bales of cotton after ginned had been divided, Tillman taking two and Pratt the other two, and said division had been made before Jordan got the bales in controversy, and the bales obtained by Jordan were the bales set apart to Pratt, then the title to said Pratt bales was in Pratt, and his delivery of them to Jordan for the account of Wooley & Jordan against him vested the legal title to said cotton in Wooley & Jordan. (C) The court charges the jury that if the cotton in controversy was delivered by Pratt and Tillman to Jordan, for credit on an account of Wooley & Jordan against Pratt, or Pratt and Tillman, then they must find for the plaintiff; and such delivery need not have been made by Pratt and Tillman. It is sufficient if they directed Jordan to get said cotton and apply it on said account. (D) The court charges the jury that in determining whether or not the two bales of cotton in controversy were delivered to Wooley & Jordan, or to Jordan for Wooley and Jordan, by said Tillman, they must look at all the evidence in the case; and if, from all the evidence in the case, they are reasonably convinced that Tillman directed Jordan to get the two bales of cotton, then the title to said cotton passed to Wooley & Jordan."

There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Street & Isbell, for appellant.

E. O McCord, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This was an action by the appellees against the appellant; one count being in trover and the other trespass for taking two bales of cotton. The facts are that one Tillman furnished the land and team, and Pratt furnished the labor, to make a crop and they were to divide the crop in equal proportions. This according to our statute, was a contract of hire, under which the crop belonged to Tillman and Pratt had a lien on it "for the value of the portion of the crop to which he was entitled." Code 1896, § 2712. The plaintiffs made advances to said Pratt during the year 1898, and he executed to them an instrument intended to be a mortgage on his interest in said crop. Under section 2712 of the Code of 1896 the contract of hire existed between the parties. What was the effect, then, of the mortgage made by Pratt? Said section provides that "such lien shall have the same force and effect, and shall be enforced, in the same manner, and under the same conditions, and in the same cases as the lien, in favor of a landlord."

Under the landlord's lien statute, as it originally stood, this court held that, as the landlord merely had a lien on the crop of his tenant, which was not the subject of assignment or transfer to another, he did not have any title or interest in the crop which could be the subject of a valid mortgage ( Broughton v. Powell, 52 Ala. 123); also that the statutory right of enforcement by attachment could not be available to an assignee of the landlord (Foster v. Westmoreland, 52 Ala. 223). Subsequently the statute was amended so as to permit the assignment of the landlord's lien, clothing the assignee with all of the landlord's rights. Code 1896, § 2706. Under this statute it results that when a landlord attempts to make a mortgage on the crop of his tenant, while it cannot operate as transfer of the legal title, which he has not, it does operate as an assignment of his lien, and clothes the assignee with the same rights and remedies as the landlord had. Leslie v. Hinson, 83 Ala. 267, 3 So. 443; Ballard v. Mayfield, 107 Ala. 396, 18 So. 29. The statutes do not transform the equitable lien of the landlord into a legal title, and the fact that he can maintain a claim suit on it is only by virtue of the statute, which has been amended so as to allow the holder of an equitable title "or lien" to maintain that particular form of action. Code 1896, § 4141. Accordingly this court has held that the statutory lien of the hireling will not support the action of trover. Jordan v. Lindsay, 132 Ala. 567, 31 So. 484. The mortgage could not amount to anything more than an assignment of the lien held by Pratt. Consequently the plaintiff could not maintain the action of trover or trespass on any title acquired by the mortgage, although, as will be shown hereafter, a different question would arise if the crop had been divided and the cotton delivered to him in payment of his lien.

The...