Green v. Consolidated Wagon & Machine Co.

• Decision Date: 27 April 1917
• Citation: 30 Idaho 359,164 P. 1016
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: HARVEY S. GREEN and E. A. SMITH, Respondents, v. CONSOLIDATED WAGON & MACHINE COMPANY, a Corporation, and H. C. VANAUSDELN, Sheriff of Twin Falls County, Idaho, Appellants

164 P. 1016

30 Idaho 359

HARVEY S. GREEN and E. A. SMITH, Respondents, v. CONSOLIDATED WAGON & MACHINE COMPANY, a Corporation, and H. C. VANAUSDELN, Sheriff of Twin Falls County, Idaho, Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 27, 1917

INJUNCTION-CONTRACT-CROP MORTGAGE-ASSUMPTION OF MORTGAGE DEBT-ASSIGNMENT OF WAGES-CREDITOR BENEFICIARY.

1. Evidence examined and held sufficient under a written contract to sustain the findings of the trial court to the effect that the respondents did not assume and agree to pay the indebtedness secured by mortgage of appellant Consolidated Wagon & Machine Co.

2. The lien of a chattel mortgage executed upon a crop to be grown upon leased premises does not attach to a crop subsequently planted thereon by another than the lessee.

3. Parol testimony is incompetent to vary the terms of a written contract, but may be admitted to explain a latent ambiguity.

4. Where one enters into a contract to labor with the understanding that the proceeds of said labor shall be paid pro rata to creditors, a subsequent assignment of the wages earned, without the consent of the said creditors, is invalid in that there is nothing owing under said contract upon which the assignment could operate.

[As to chattel mortgage on growing crops and whether the lien continues after severance, see note in 18 Am.St. 770]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Twin Falls County. Hon. C. O. Stockslager, District Judge.

Action for injunction. From a judgment for the plaintiffs defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Judgment of the district court affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

J. H. Wise, for Appellants.

It is our contention under sec. 3406, Rev. Codes, relating to chattel mortgages, that Corum caused the crops in dispute to be sown, and retained an interest therein, to the amount of the mortgage of appellant. (Collins v. Brown, 19 Idaho 360, 114 P. 671; Eckles v. Ray, 13 Okla. 541, 75 P. 286; Reeves & Co. v. Sheets, 16 Okla. 342, 82 P. 487.)

Sweeley & Sweeley, for Respondents.

Where a lessee, who had given a mortgage upon crops to be planted in the future, terminates his lease before said crops are planted, no lien of the mortgage attaches to crops planted on the land by other persons. (Gammon v. Buel, 86 Iowa 754, 53 N.W. 340.)

RICE, J. Budge, C. J., and Morgan, J., concur.

OPINION

RICE, J.

This action was brought by the respondents herein to obtain an injunction against the appellants, restraining them from proceeding with the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage given upon crops to be grown during the year 1913 upon certain land described in the complaint. The appellant, Consolidated Wagon & Machine Co., answered denying the material allegations of the complaint, and by way of cross-complaint set up their note and mortgage, and nonpayment of the same, and asked for a foreclosure thereof. They also asked for a judgment against respondents for the amount represented by their note.

On Nov 24, 1911, the respondents leased certain land to one T. L. Corum for a term of four years. Under the terms of the said lease, Corum was to receive two-thirds of the crops raised on the said premises during the term of the lease. On Dec. 9, 1912, Corum and his wife executed a chattel mortgage to appellant, Consolidated Wagon & Machine Co., covering all crops then growing or to be grown during the year 1913 upon the land included within the lease, to secure the payment of a note for $ 878.10. The mortgage was filed for record in the office of the recorder of Twin Falls county. On April 12, 1913, Corum and respondents, by an instrument in writing, released each other from their mutual obligations under the terms of said lease. Thereupon, on the same day, Corum and respondents entered into a written contract, whereby Corum for the consideration therein named agreed to cultivate, seed and corrugate the lands which had been included within the lease, being the same lands mentioned in the chattel mortgage. According to the terms of the contract between Corum and respondents, Corum was to receive only as much of the money to be earned thereunder as was necessary to pay his expenses while he was thus engaged. The balance of the money after completion of the contract was to be disposed of...