Holden v. Cox
| Decision Date | 21 March 1883 |
| Citation | 15 N.W. 269,60 Iowa 449 |
| Parties | HOLDEN v. COX |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Des Moines Circuit Court.
ACTION to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the unlawful appropriation of certain corn upon which the plaintiff had a landlord's lien. The defendant concedes that he appropriated the corn, but denies that he is liable therefor, because he says that he purchased the same of the plaintiff's tenant, the owner of the corn, as he had a right to do, and the plaintiff's lien, if any, thereby became divested. The defendant's purchase appears to have been made in December, 1878. The corn in question had been raised that year by one Ray, as tenant of the plaintiff. The amount purchased was five hundred bushels, and was part of a large quantity standing in cribs upon the leased premises and upon all of which the plaintiff had a lien for rent to an amount greater than the value of the corn purchased by the defendant. The plaintiff demanded of the defendant that he should return the corn, but he refused to do so, stating that the corn had been consumed. The court rendered judgment for the value of the corn. The defendant appeals.
AFFIRMED.
J. T Illick and Geo. Robertson, for appellant.
Hall & Huston, for appellee.
Section 2017 of the Code provides that the "landlord shall have a lien for his rent upon all crops grown upon the demised premises." This provision would, of course, be sufficient to enable the landlord to follow the crop into the hands of a person who was a mere trespasser, but the defendant contends that it is not sufficient to enable the landlord to follow the crop into the hands of a purchaser. His argument is, that the tenant must, in the nature of the case, be allowed to market his crop, and, if so, that he must be allowed to give a good title. In support of his proposition he cites Grant v. Whitwell, 9 Iowa 152, and Nesbitt v. Bartlett, 14 Iowa 485.
It is not easy, we think, to lay down any general rule which shall clearly distinguish between and reconcile all the decisions which have been made upon the subject of the landlord's lien. In Grant v. Whitwell, it was held that, while a stock of goods kept merely for sale upon the demised premises is kept for use within the meaning of the statute, and so is subject to a lien in favor of the landlord, yet such lien does not follow the goods sold in the ordinary course of trade. Such ruling seemed to be necessary to avoid the absurdity of supposing that the legislature intended that the landlord should be allowed to assert his lien upon goods thus sold. The doubt, if any arises upon the construction given the word "used" as including the meaning kept for sale. But the decision has been too long acquiesced in to justify now any serious criticism. Besides, we think that no great practical difficulty has ever resulted directly from it. The difficulty, if any, has been to resist the application of the logic in cases of a somewhat different character. In Nesbit v. Bartlett, the question was as to whether a landlord's lien upon a tenant's cow follows the cow when sold, and it was held that it did not. The cow, it was thought, could not be presumed to be kept solely for use, but partly for sale, and being so kept it was thought that the case came under Grant v. Whitwell. The attempt is now to apply the doctrine to crops, and we are asked to hold that, as crops are kept for sale, they may be sold and the landlord's lien be divested by the sale. Yet, if we so hold, the statute will have but little practical operation. The landlords...
To continue reading
Request your trial