First Nat. Bank of Yuma v. Yuma Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 24 April 1926
• Docket Number: Civil 2464
• Citation: 30 Ariz. 188,245 P. 277
• Parties: THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF YUMA, a Corporation, Appellant, v. THE YUMA NATIONAL BANK, a Corporation, Appellee
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

245 P. 277

30 Ariz. 188

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF YUMA, a Corporation, Appellant, v. THE YUMA NATIONAL BANK, a Corporation, Appellee

Civil No. 2464

Supreme Court of Arizona

April 24, 1926

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. E. Elmo Bollinger, Judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions that judgment be entered in favor of The First National Bank of Yuma.

Messrs Robertson & Campbell, for Appellant.

Mr William H. Westover, for Appellee.

Ross J. McAlister, C. J., and Lockwood, J., concur.

OPINION

Ross, J.

The question involved in this suit is the validity of a duly recorded chattel mortgage upon an unplanted crop of maize as against a later mortgage on the same crop given after it was planted.

The First National Bank of Yuma took from one W. A. Gray two chattel mortgages on crops that the mortgagor had not then planted but contemplated planting. These mortgages were on cotton to be planted and grown during 1924 and 1925, in acreage and description as follows: forty acres of the N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4, thirty acres of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 and thirty acres of the N.W. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 4, township 9 south, range 24 east, Yuma county, and all other crops of whatever nature planted or grown on said premises, whether in lieu of, or in addition to, the cotton crop above described. The first mortgage was for $ 1,500, and was executed and recorded in Yuma county January 14, 1924, and the second was for $ 600, and was executed and recorded February 16, 1924. These mortgages, in addition to crops, covered farm implements and horses of the mortgagor.

On May 31, 1924, Gray gave to the Yuma National Bank, to secure the payment of $ 1,150, a chattel mortgage on a one-half interest in seven acres of maize then growing on the N.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4, two-thirds interest in fifteen acres of maize then growing on the S.W. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4; and two-thirds interest in ten acres of maize then growing on the N.W. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of said section 4.

When the mortgages to the First National Bank were given, Gray had no intention of planting maize, but expected to grow something else.

After the mortgagor had harvested the 1924 crop of maize, the Yuma National Bank, claiming the same as mortgagee, replevied it, whereupon the First National Bank instituted proceedings to try the rights of property in said maize under the provisions of the statute, paragraph 1648 et seq., gave bond as therein provided and obtained possession of maize.

Thereafter, in due course, issues were made up in writing under the direction of the court, as the statute provides. A trial was had before the court without a jury, and judgment entered in favor of the Yuma National Bank upon the theory that in this jurisdiction a chattel mortgage upon unplanted crops is of no validity as against a chattel mortgage on the same crop after it was planted. Whether the court was right in that conclusion is the question that we have to decide.

The rule of decision in Arizona is the common law, if consistent with, and adaptable to, local conditions and the necessities of the people, and not repugnant to written law or established customs. Paragraph 5555, Civil Code, 1913. At the common law a mortgage upon a crop already planted was recognized as valid. Under this rule the mortgage to the Yuma National Bank was a good mortgage because the crop of maize had been planted and was growing at the time it was given. The rule when the crop had not been planted at the date of giving mortgage was different. In such case the mortgage was not good. The reason it was of no validity was because a mortgage under the common law was treated as a conveyance that had the effect of changing the title of property from the mortgagor to the mortgagee; it was a sale of the property to the mortgagee with a defeasance clause. Since a sale or transfer of property not in esse could have nothing to operate...