First Nat. Bank v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 22 June 1933
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 521.
• Citation: 227 Ala. 188,149 So. 228
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF STEVENSON v. CRAWFORD et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

149 So. 228

227 Ala. 188

FIRST NAT. BANK OF STEVENSON v. CRAWFORD et al.

8 Div. 521.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 22, 1933

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition of the First National Bank of Stevenson for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in First Nat. Bank v Crawford et al., 149 So. 230.

Writ denied.

Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for petitioner.

Ernest Parks, of Scottsboro, opposed.

KNIGHT Justice.

Petition of First National Bank of Stevenson for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to bring before us for review the opinion and conclusion of that court in the case of First National Bank of Stevenson v. Margie Crawford et al., 149 So. 230.

From the facts disclosed in the opinion filed in said cause by the Court of Appeals, speaking both through Judge Rice and Judge Samford, it appears that the suit is one in detinue for the recovery of certain described corn and hay, being crops grown during the year 1931 on a plantation, at one time owned by one Ridley. It appears that Ridley on January 9, 1931 executed to this petitioner a mortgage, covering by its terms "my (Ridley's) entire 1931 crop. Our entire crops of corn, cotton and produce, and all rents accruing to us for the year 1931," etc. This mortgage was of record, when Ridley on January 14, 1931, conveyed the lands to Margie Crawford et al., his daughters.

It also appears that Ridley had rented a part of the land for the crop year 1931 to two named tenants, for a certain portion of the crop. These tenants never attorned, so far as the opinion discloses, to either the petitioner or to the defendants in the action, but thereafter paid the rent-two hundred bushels of corn and the fifty-five bales of hay-to the defendants. Petitioner brought suit in detinue to recover this specific personal property.

The Court of Appeals was of the opinion that the plaintiff (petitioner) could not recover in the action, and reversed the judgment of the lower court, for the reasons set forth in the two opinions in the cause, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants.

While the mortgage in question was executed on January 9th, and was due and payable on March 13, 1931, it nevertheless was not void, for the reason that it became due before the crops of 1931, which it purported to convey, could be raised and gathered. This question is controlled by section 9008 of the Code. Under the provision of that section of the Code, the mortgage of an unplanted crop, if executed after January 1st of that current year, passes the legal title to the mortgagee from the moment of its execution. Keyser v. Maas &amp Schwarz, 111 Ala. 390, 21 So. 346. This, of course means to apply to such crops as may thereafter, during said year, be produced by the mortgagor, his agents, servants, or employees (Holst & Co. v. Harmon, 122 Ala. 453, 26 So. 157), but not to crops grown by a tenant, for in the latter case the landlord had, and could have, no legal title to convey. The legal title would be in the tenant, subject to the lien of the landlord for rent. This case involves only crops grown by tenants.

The mortgage in question was, however, efficacious to transfer to the petitioner the rent claims or rent obligations of the tenants on the land for that year. And this constituted a severance of the rents from the reversion; and the purchase by, or the conveyance of the mortgagor to, the daughter of the mortgagor, of the land, subsequent to the execution and recordation of the mortgage, could not defeat the rights of the mortgagee, as transferee of the rents, in a proper proceedings. Young v. Garber, 149 Ala. 196, 42 So 867; Herren v. Burns et al., 217 Ala. 692, 117 So. 417; Patapsco Guano Co. v. Ballard, 107 Ala. 710, 19 So. 777, 54 Am. St. Rep. 131; Pierce v. Fulmer...