Hudson v. Wright

• Citation: 1 Ala.App. 433,56 So. 258
• Parties: HUDSON v. WRIGHT.
• Decision Date: 30 May 1911
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

56 So. 258

1 Ala.App. 433

HUDSON v. WRIGHT.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

May 30, 1911

Rehearing Denied June 14, 1911.

Appeal from City Court of Gadsden; John H. Disque, Judge.

Action by Herman Wright against F. N. Hudson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

See also, 164 Ala. 298, 51 So. 389, 137 Am. St. Rep. 55.

Goodhue & Blackwood, for appellant.

George D. Motley, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This action is by the appellee against the appellant, some of the counts claiming for a conversion of two bales of cotton corn, and cotton seed, claimed to belong to the plaintiff and others alleging that the plaintiff had a lien on the cotton for services in making the crop, and that defendant by taking said cotton under attachment proceedings against the tenant in chief, deprived plaintiff of his right to enforce his lien against the same.

The evidence is without conflict that the defendant owned the land on which the cotton, etc., was raised; that the land was rented by him for the year 1906 to J. T. Wright; that the plaintiff worked a crop on said land under an agreement between him and said J. T. Wright, by which said Wright furnished the land, teams, etc., and the plaintiff furnished the labor, and was to receive one-half of the crops raised; that the two bales of cotton, etc., in question, were levied upon under an attachment sued out by the defendant against said J. T. Wright, for rent and advances made by the defendant, as landlord, to said J. T. Wright.

It was also in evidence that the plaintiff had previously sold two bales of cotton, of the crop raised by him, and out of the proceeds he retained $55.80, and placed $53.04 to the credit of J. T. Wright.

The court refused to allow the defendant to prove that the cotton, etc., received by him through the attachment proceedings, was not sufficient to pay the amounts due him as landlord, for rent and advances, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Under section 4743 of the Code of 1907, and the numerous decisions thereon, the contract between J. T. Wright and the plaintiff created the relation of hirer and hireling, and the laborer has no property or interest in the crop, save that he has a lien on the crop for "the value of the portion of the crop to which he is entitled." Foust v. Bains Bros., 167 Ala. 115, 52 So. 743.

Section 4734 of the Code of 1907 provides that "a landlord has a lien, which is paramount to, and has preference over all other liens, on the crop grown on rented lands for rent for the current year, and for advances made in money or other thing of value," etc.

The plaintiff, not owning any part of the crop, could not recover in trover; and it is equally clear that under the counts claiming for interfering with his lien on the crops for his hire, he could not recover against one who had subjected the same to a lien which was superior to his. The fact that section 4743 of the Code gives to the laborer's lien "the same force and effect, and shall be enforced in the same manner, and under the same conditions, and in the same cases as the lien in favor of the landlord," does not contravene the positive provisions of section 4734, making the landlord's lien paramount to all other liens.

Pleas 3 (as amended) and 5 set out the facts showing the relation of hirer and hireling between said J. T. Wright and plaintiff, and that defendant's lien was paramount to that of plaintiff, and the court erred in sustaining demurrers to said pleas. Counts 5 and 7 of the complaint also set out the contract, showing a contract of hire.

In addition to all this, the evidence shows that the plaintiff made only four...