Gould-Galbraith Supply Co. v. Triplett

• Decision Date: 22 December 1924
• Docket Number: 73
• Citation: 266 S.W. 937,167 Ark. 125
• Parties: GOULD-GALBRAITH SUPPLY COMPANY v. TRIPLETT
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

266 S.W. 937

167 Ark. 125

GOULD-GALBRAITH SUPPLY COMPANY v. TRIPLETT

No. 73

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 22, 1924

Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Harry T. Wooldridge, for appellant.

A purchaser of cotton is not liable for landlord's lien unless he is possessed of facts sufficient to put him on inquiry, which, if pursued with reasonable diligence, would result in the disclosure of the landlord's lien. 158 Ark 432. Mere knowledge of the land upon which the cotton is raised is not sufficient to charge the purchaser with knowledge of a landlord's lien. 158 Ark. 432. In addition to the satisfaction of the account, appellant actually parted with something of value, and the case at 69 Ark. 306 relied on by appellee in the trial court is not decisive of the question.

A. F Triplett, for appellee.

Under a rent contract with option to purchase, the vendor has a landlord's lien upon the crops grown upon the premises. 156 Ark. 387; 95 Ark. 32; 154 Ark. 612. The cancellation of a debt is not a payment of value if there be a landlord's lien on the crop raised. 69 Ark. 306. It was appellant's duty to investigate the title, and, having failed to do so is chargeable with all facts which such investigation would disclose. 103 Ark. 91; 56 Ark. 473; 158 Ark. 432. See also 89 A. S. R. 373; 153 Ark. 599.

OPINION

WOOD, J.

This is an action by the appellee against the appellant, in the Jefferson Chancery Court, to enforce a landlord's lien. Appellant is an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business at Pine Bluff, Arkansas. It is engaged in the business of furnishing supplies to farmers, tenants, sharecroppers, etc., and also in the business of buying and selling cotton and corn. Appellant has done a general furnishing business in the southwestern part of Jefferson County for some years. In the year 1922 Dave Drake was a negro tenant, raising a cotton crop on a certain parcel of land in Jefferson County, and the appellant furnished him the supplies for that year, which, with appellant's account brought forward from the previous year, amounted to the sum of $ 583.67. On the 11th of October, 1922, Drake delivered to appellant five bales of cotton grown upon the lands mentioned. On January 15, 1923, appellant disposed of the cotton and, at the direction of Drake, applied $ 583.67 of the proceeds of such sale to the payment of Drake's account with appellant, and paid to Drake in cash the remainder of such proceeds, amounting to $ 19.45.

The appellee alleged that he was the owner of the lands on which the cotton mentioned was grown, and that Drake was his tenant under a written contract of lease; that Drake had not paid the rent for the year 1922, and that appellant had converted the proceeds of the cotton mentioned to its own use with notice of appellee's lien for rents, and prayed that appellant be required to account to him for such proceeds. The appellant denied generally the allegations of the complaint, and specifically that it had taken the cotton produced by Drake on appellee's land during the year 1922 and converted the same to its own use with notice that appellee was claiming a landlord's lien thereon for the year 1922.

The testimony for the appellee tended to prove that the appellee entered into a written contract with Drake in 1919, which contract provided for a cash payment and yearly rentals, and an option to purchase the same upon the payment of these rentals. Notes were given evidencing the amount to be paid for the rent of each year. The rent for the year 1922 was due on November 1, but was not paid. It was the custom of appellee's agent to furnish to the mercantile firms who supplied tenants on appellee's farm a list of those tenants. He furnished such a list to the appellant, and collected from the appellant all the rents due from tenants on all the lands except Dave Drake's. Appellant had paid the rents due appellee from another tenant under a similar contract of that of appellee with Drake. Appellee's agent did not indicate to the appellant that appellee would not insist upon his right to collect the rent from Drake for the year 1922. But, on the contrary, appellee's agent had frequent conversations with appellant's agent concerning the rent, extending from September until the institution of this action, and he notified the appellant's agent that Drake owed the appellee the rent for the land for the year 1922.

The testimony on behalf of the appellant tended to show that it was the custom of appellant to indicate on its ledger sheets the printed word "landlord" opposite the name of the owner of the land whose tenants appellant was furnishing, together with the number of acres the tenant had in cultivation and the rent he was to pay. On the ledger sheets of Drake's account it is shown that he owned 80 acres of land, and that 50 acres were in cultivation in the year 1922, 35 acres being planted in cotton.

Appellant took a chattel mortgage to secure its account for the supplies furnished Drake for the year 1922. In the fall of 1922 Drake delivered to appellant five bales of cotton, for which appellant allowed him twenty-four cents per pound amounting in the aggregate to $ 603.12, and deducted from such proceeds Drake's account, and paid him the balance in cash, the sum of $ 19.45. At that time, no one representing the appellee had notified appellant that appellee claimed a landlord's lien for the rent for the year 1922. The first knowledge that appellant had that appellee claimed rent on the land cultivated by Drake for the year 1922 was October 11 of that year, the date when Drake delivered the cotton to the appellant, and in all the dealings that appellant had with Drake from February, 1921, until October 1, 1922, ap...