Hooks v. Burns

• Decision Date: 22 January 1934
• Docket Number: 31009
• Citation: 152 So. 469,168 Miss. 723
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HOOKS v. BURNS

152 So. 469

168 Miss. 723

HOOKS v. BURNS

No. 31009

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 22, 1934

Division B

Suggestion Of Error Overruled February 5, 1934.

APPEAL from circuit court of Quitman county, HON. WILLIAM A. ALCORN JR., Judge.

Suit by sadie burns against j. M. Hooks and another. From an adverse decree, named defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded. Suggestion of error overruled.

T. N. Gore, of Marks, for appellant.

It is the contention of the appellant that the complainant in this case had no right to proceed against him or subject his, agricultural products to the payment of her claim for rent, in a suit against him without Steadmon and Curry and Garrett as parties to the suit, they being necessary parties.

All persons who are materially interested, legally or equitably, in the subject-matter of the suit ought to be made parties therein, either as complainants or as defendants.

Griffith's Mississippi Chancery Practice, secs. 102 and 109.

A subtenant has a right to resort to a court of equity to require the landlord to first resort to the interest of the principal lessee, in the agricultural products, for the satisfaction of the landlord's claim for rent, before being permitted to resort to the interest of the subtenant.

Applewhite v. Nelms et al., 14 So. 443, 71. Miss. 482.

The appellee had no right to bring this bill against the appellant, under the stated facts alleged in the original bill itself. The bill charges that this appellant was a subtenant on the leased premises. At common law, neither the subtenant nor his property was liable to the lessor of lands, in such a way as to give the lessor a right of action against him.

36 C. J. 379; 16 R. C. L. sec. 384, p. 879; Doty v. Heth, 52 Miss. 530.

It is true that section 2186 of the Code of 1930 gives the lessor of land in Mississippi a lien on the agricultural products of the leased premises, however and by whomsoever produced, to secure the payment of rent, etc. This section does not impose upon the subtenants of the lessee on any leased premises any obligation to pay any such debts contracted by the principal lessee either for rent or supplies, in favor of the landlord. The statute merely declares a lien on the agricultural products of the leased promises. This statute is in derogation of the common law and will not be construed as going further than the language used clearly manifests.

P. H. Lowrey, of Marks, for appellee.

Both the subtenant and the purchaser of cotton covered by the landlord's lien stand in the relation of sureties to the chief tenant. The court expressly holds that the subtenant is a surety to the extent of the value of his crop, and in the Applewhite case and the Scott & Garrett case impliedly hold that the purchaser of crops stands ill the same relation.

Applewhite v. Nelms, 71. Miss. 482, 14 So. 443; Scott & Garrett v. Greenriver Lumber Company, 116 Miss. 524, 77 So. 309; Powell v. Tomlinson, 92 So. 226.

A large measure of discretion is allowed to the complainant whereby so long as he comes within the rule as to necessary parties he will not, be required to sue those against whom he does not wish to proceed.

Griffith's Chancery Practice, secs. 102 and 109, pp. 109 and 114; Taylor v. Ware, 54 Miss. 42; 15 Enc. of Pleading and Practice, pp. 659 and 660; Horne v. Tartt, 76 Miss. 304; 21 R. C. L., pp. 1124 to 1128; 27 A. & E. Enc. of Law, p. 463; 50 C. J. 231, 232.

In the case at bar the defendant (appellant) had no right to require the complainant (appellee) to amend her bill and make new parties in this case.

27 A. & E. Enc. of Law, p. 463; 50 C. J. 232; 21 R. C. L. 1128; Horne v. Tartt, 76 Miss. 304.

Under the statute all crops raised on the leased premises by whomsoever made are liable to the landlord for the rent. Our court has repeatedly held that the original tenant is principal debtor and the subtenant the surety, and that all of the law of principal and surety applies.

Applewhite v. Nelms, 71 Miss. 482, 14 So. 443; Scott & Garrett v. Greenriver Lbr. Co., 116 Miss. 524, 77 So, 309; Powell v. Tomlinson, 92 So. 226.

There is a wide distinction between proper parties and necessary parties in equity proceedings. The former term frequently embraces all who have any connection with the subject-matter of the litigation; the latter includes only those whose interest are to be effected by the decree sought.

Taylor v. Ware, 54 Miss. 42; Horne v. Tartt, 76 Miss. 304.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

Appellee filed her bill on the equity side of the county court of Quitman county against appellant and the Citizens' Bank & Trust Company of Marks to recover the sum of one hundred seventy-six dollars deposited by appellant with the bank, being the proceeds of the sale of cotton produced by him on land of appellee on which appellee had a landlord's lien for rent. There was a trial on bill, answer, and proofs, resulting in a decree in favor of appellee. On appeal by appellant to the circuit court, the decree of the county court was affirmed. From that decree appellant prosecutes this appeal.

Appellee set up in her bill, in substance, that she owned certain sixty acres of land in Quitman county which she leased for the year 1932 to Q. O. Steadman. The bill fails to set out the amount of rent Steadman was to pay for the land; the amount opposite the dollar mark being left blank. The bill charges that Steadman subrented part of the land for the same year to appellant, for which appellant agreed to pay him one hundred seventy-six dollars; that appellant produced crops on the land, including cotton, and out of the proceeds of the sale of the cotton, he deposited the sum of one hundred seventy-six dollars to his own credit in the Citizens' Bank & Trust Company of Marks; that Steadman paid all the rent he agreed to pay appellee, except the sum of one hundred seventy-six dollars, the exact amount appellant had on deposit in the bank; that appellee was entitled to subject the one hundred seventy-six dollars in the blank to the payment of the balance due her by Steadman for rent, for the reason that she had a landlord's lien for Steadman's rent on the crops produced by appellant, of which the one hundred seventy-six dollars was a part of the proceeds.

Appellant, answered the bill and made his answer a cross-bill seeking to make new parties. He set up in his answer that one Peter Curry worked part of these sixty acres of land leased by Steadman from appellee, and that Steadman worked part of it mid both of them produced crops thereon, and that the value of such crops was more than sufficient to pay the rent Steadman agreed to pay appellee for the sixty acres of land; that one T. M. Garrott bad purchased kill the cotton produced on the land by Steadman and Curry. Appellant averred in his cross-bill that he objected to the one hundred seventy-six dollars he had placed in the bank being subjected to the payment of the balance of the rent due by Steadman to appellee, for the reason that Steadman owed him a larger amount than that sum, which amount he proposed to offset against the one hundred seventy-six dollars to that extent. In his cross-bill appellant prayed that Steadman, Curry, and Garrott be made parties to the cause as cross-defendants, and that appellee's remedy for her rent be first exhausted against Steadman, Curry, and Garrott before resorting to the one hundred seventy-six dollars which he had on deposit in the bank.

Appellee demurred to the answer and cross-bill. The demurrer was sustained, and properly so, upon the ground that new parties cannot be introduced into a cause by a cross-bill. Griffith's Chancery Practice, sec. 382; Ladner v. Ogden, 31 Miss. 332; Bishop v. Miller, 48 Miss. 364; Shaw v. Millsaps, 50 Miss. 380; Wright v. Frank, 61 Miss. 32; District Grand Lodge v. Leonard, 92 Miss. 777, 46 So. 532; Lemmon v. Dunn, 61 Miss. 210.

Appellant thereupon filed an answer to appellee's bill, admitting, in substance, the facts therein alleged, but not the conclusions of law. He further set up in his answer, as he had in his cross-bill, that his landlord, Steadman, owed him more than the one hundred seventy-six dollars, which latter amount he had the right to credit on what Steadman owed him, for the reason that Steadman and Curry had produced more than enough crops on the leased land cultivated by them to pay the entire rent due by Steadman to appellee, that the cotton produced by them had been sold to T. M. Garrott, and that under the law it was the duty of appellee to exhaust her remedy for the balance due her by Steadman by proceeding against him and Curry and Garrott.

After the demurrer was sustained to the answer and cross-bill, appellant moved the court, by reason of the matters set up in his answer and cross-bill, to require the complainant to so amend her bill as to make Curry, Garrott, and Steadman parties to the cause, because they were necessary parties, in order to determine the rights and equities of all concerned. This motion was overruled by the court.

In its decree, the court awarded a recovery in favor...