Green v. Scales

• Decision Date: 13 December 1919
• Docket Number: (No. 9189.)
• Citation: 219 S.W. 274
• Parties: GREEN et al. v. SCALES.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

219 S.W. 274

GREEN et al. v. SCALES.

(No. 9189.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.

December 13, 1919.

Rehearing Denied January 17, 1920.

Appeal from Jones County Court; J. F. Lindsey, Judge.

Action by H. S. Scales against W. M. Green and others. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Joe C. Randel and C. P. Chastain, both of Hamlin, for appellants.

Walter S. Pope, of Anson, for appellee.

BUCK, J.

We hold the trial petition of plaintiff good as against a general demurrer. Plaintiff alleged notice to defendants Green & Son, before they purchased the bale of cotton in controversy, that he claimed a "landlord's lien on said cotton for the full amount that said cotton brought." This constituted sufficient allegation of notice that plaintiff was claiming the bale of cotton or its full value or entire proceeds to satisfy his landlord's lien, and sufficiently averred, as against a general demurrer, such notice.

When an obligation to pay is complete, a cause of action at once arises, and no formal demand is necessary. Ballew v. Casey, 60 Tex. 573. The further allegation or admission contained in the petition that said defendants, after such notice, "persisted in purchasing same and converted to their own use $108.15, the proceeds of said bale of cotton, less $36.05 paid as rent due," would not negative or limit the allegation before made that said defendants had actual notice of the claim of plaintiff to the full value of the cotton, but rather reiterates and strengthens the former allegation.

Articles 5475 et seq., V. S. Tex. Civ. Stats., as amended by Act of March 15, 1915 (Laws 1915, c. 38 [Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 5475]), give the landlord a preference lien upon the indicated property of the tenant "for any rent that may become due and for all money and the value of all animals, tools, provisions, and supplies furnished by the landlord to the tenant to make a crop on such premises," etc. This lien extends to all of the crop raised, and the lien is not satisfied until all of the rent and advances have been paid. Wilkes v. Adler, 68 Tex. 689, 5 S. W. 497; Vol. 3 Rose's Notes, 867; Leverett v. Meeks, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 523, 68 S. W. 302; Beckham v. Collins, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 241, 117 S. W. 432; Zapp v. Johnson, 87 Tex. 641, 30 S. W. 861; Boydston v. Morris, 71 Tex. 697, 10 S. W. 331; Jackson v. Corley, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 417, 70 S. W. 570; and Fields v. Fields (No. 9125) 216 S. W. 195, recently decided by this court, not yet officially published.

Plaintiff was the only witness who testified in the case, though the judgment recites that defendant H. A. Welty, the tenant, and W. W. Green, one of the firm of Green & Son, were present at the trial. It is urged by appellant that the evidence fails to show: (1) That the bale of cotton in controversy was raised on the rented premises belonging to plaintiff. (2) That said cotton was raised on said premises during the crop year of 1917. (3) That defendant Welty was indebted to plaintiff for supplies furnished for that year in any amount. (4) That H. A. Welty was the tenant of the plaintiff during said year. (5) That plaintiff alleged or proved any demand upon Green & Son for the possession of said cotton. (6) That the cotton in controversy was purchased by Green & Son within one month after its removal from the rented premises.

Plaintiff testified that he rented his farm in Jones county to the defendant H. A. Welty for the year 1917, and that the latter was to pay him as rent one-third of the feed-stuff and one-fourth of the cotton raised thereon; that J. W. Welty, son of H. A. Welty, lived on plaintiff's farm, and that H. A. Welty lived on the farm of a Mr. Noble; but that J. W. Welty did not owe plaintiff anything, but lived on said farm as H. A. Welty's "help." If H. A. Welty made the contract of rental with plaintiff, the fact that he did not live on the place, but that his son, a married man, did, and worked the farm and made the crop, would not ipso facto destroy the relation of landlord and tenant existing between plaintiff and H. A. Welty by reason of the contract between them. The landlord has a lien on all crops raised on the rented premises whether the land was cultivated by the tenant in person or by his agent, or subtenant....