First National Bank of Van Buren v. Cazort & McGehee Company

• Decision Date: 08 May 1916
• Docket Number: 387
• Citation: 186 S.W. 86,123 Ark. 605
• Parties: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF VAN BUREN v. CAZORT & MCGEHEE COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

186 S.W. 86

123 Ark. 605

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF VAN BUREN v. CAZORT & MCGEHEE COMPANY

No. 387

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 8, 1916

Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; James Cochran, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This appeal comes from a judgment against appellant in a controversy over four bales of cotton raised by Ed Smart and delivered to the appellant to apply upon a debt secured by a mortgage held by it. The appellee brought replevin for the property claiming the right to the possession thereof, under a mortgage executed by said Smart. On appeal the case was tried by the circuit court upon an agreed statement of facts as follows:

Ed Smart raised a crop of twenty-five acres of cotton on the Anderson farm in Crawford County in the year 1914. He executed a mortgage to appellee company on February 24, 1914 which was filed in the recorder's office on the 26th of February, 1914. The property described therein included plow tools, certain farming implements, a buggy and harness "and fifteen acres of growing cotton, also seed in said cotton and four acres of growing corn, and acres of growing wheat, and acres of growing oats, and all other crops or produce I may in any manner have an interest in for the year 1914, to be planted and grown on the Anderson farm in Van Buren township, controlled by Louis Bryan, or anywhere else in Crawford County."

He executed on April 1, 1914, to appellant bank, a mortgage which was filed in the recorder's office on the 2d day of April, 1914, the property described therein being "ten acres of cotton to be grown season of 1914 on Anderson's farm in Richland township," and "cotton, horses and other personal property in Richland township," and cotton, horses and other personal property.

The mortgagor raised a crop of twenty-acres of cotton on the said Anderson farm in 1914 and gathered the cotton in controversy from said field and delivered it to appellant bank to be applied on its mortgage, and the bank was in possession thereof when the suit was commenced. The cotton was sold by agreement and the net proceeds amounting to $ 100.16 is now in the hands of appellant; the debt due by mortgagor to each party exceeds the amount of the proceeds of the cotton sold.

Judgment affirmed.

E. L. Matlock, for appellant.

1. Appellee's mortgage is void for uncertainty. 35 Ark. 169; 41 Id. 70; 43 Id. 350; 108 Id. 162. The words, "all other crops," does not cure the uncertainty. 21 A. & E. Enc. Law (2 ed.) 1011; 54 Cal. 357; 54 N.J.Eq. 471; 62 S.E. 473; 87 P. 583; 11 Ark. 455; 1 Leigh (Va.) 610.

C. A. Starbird, for appellee.

1. Appellee's mortgage was a valid lien on all crops. It was sufficiently definite. 51 Ark. 410; 52 Id. 371. Appellant is a junior incumbrancer and took with full notice.

OPINION

KIRBY, J., (after stating the facts).

Appellant contends that appellee's mortgage is void for uncertainty of description of the property conveyed and that appellant is entitled to retain the cotton delivered to it under its mortgage notwithstanding it is also void for insufficient description.

The mortgage to appellee covered fifteen acres of growing cotton and the seed therein "and all other crops or produce I may in any manner have an interest in in ...