Hinton v. Walston

• Decision Date: 09 October 1894
• Citation: 20 S.E. 164,115 N.C. 7
• Parties: HINTON v. WALSTON et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

20 S.E. 164

115 N.C. 7

HINTON v. WALSTON et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 9, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Camden county; Armfield, Judge.

Action by John L. Hinton against William P. Walston and another. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Where a person in adverse possession of land severs crops before recovery in ejectment by the owner, the title thereto is in the former.

W. J Griffin and Pruden & Vann, for appellant.

Grandy & Aydlett, for appellees.

SHEPHERD C.J.

Conceding for the purposes of the argument, that the relationship substantially of mortgagor and mortgagee still exists between the plaintiff and the defendant Walston, it is clear that the plaintiff, as mortgagee, cannot recover the crops which are the subject of this controversy. These crops were grown by the mortgagor while in possession, and were actually severed before the entry of the mortgagee. In Killebrew v Hines, 104 N.C. 182, 10 S.E. 159, 251, it was held that the mortgagee is not the owner of the growing crops of the mortgagor in possession, and that, if they are severed before entry, the mortgagee cannot recover them. It is true that it was suggested in the opinion that, as between the parties the crops, although severed, might, before removal, be charged in equity upon the insolvency of the mortgagor and the inadequacy of the land as security; but it is plain that equity would never extend such relief to the prejudice of third persons who have acquired interests in the crops, and especially as against one like the defendant Guirkin, who has not only, it seems, acquired the legal title by virtue of his chattel mortgage and actual severance of the crops, but also a superior standing in equity by reason of his having supplied the means necessary for the production of the same. So, even, independent of Act 1889, c. 476 (which, it is argued, applies only to formal agricultural liens), the plaintiff could not invoke equitable relief. Carr v Dail, 114 N.C. 284, 19 S.E. 235. In this case, however, no equitable relief is asked; and even as against the mortgagor it could not be granted if prayed for, as there is nothing in the case to show the insolvency of the mortgagor or the inadequacy of the security. The plaintiff, then, relying strictly upon his alleged legal rights, could not recover as against the mortgagor; a fortiori, he could not recover as against the defendant Gu...