Jackson v. Jefferson

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Anderson, J.
• Citation: Jackson v. Jefferson, 171 Miss. 774, 158 So. 486 (Miss. 1935)
• Decision Date: 14 January 1935
• Docket Number: 31507
• Parties: JACKSON v. JEFFERSON et al

158 So. 486

171 Miss. 774

JACKSON v. JEFFERSON et al

No. 31507

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 14, 1935

Division B

1 TRUSTS.

If trustee or other fiduciary, in violation of his duty, uses money to pay antecedent debt of his own to creditor who has notice of such breach of trust or that money is subject to trust, beneficiary may impress trust on money in hands of creditor.

2 TRUSTS.

"Constructive trust" arises where one party has obtained money which does not equitably belong to him, and which he cannot in good conscience retain or withhold from another entitled thereto as, for example, money acquired through breach of trust or violation of fiduciary trust.

3. LANDLORD AND TENANT.

Where tenant was authorized to sell crop free from share croppers' liens and to turn buyers' checks over to landlord for collection, who was to turn back to tenants amounts due croppers to be turned over to them, croppers' liens, though waived as to buyers of crops, were not waived as to proceeds in hands of tenant or landlord (Code 1930, section 2238).

4. TRUSTS.

Where tenant was authorized to sell crop free from share croppers' liens and to turn buyers' checks over to landlord for collection, who was to turn back to tenant amounts due croppers to be turned over to them, such amounts were impressed with trust in hands of landlord, who knew funds constituted croppers' shares, and could not be applied on tenant's note notwithstanding tenant's consent thereto (Code 1930, section 2238).

HON. J. L. WILLIAMS, Chancellor.

APPEAL from the chancery court of Humphreys county HON. J. L. WILLIAMS, Chancellor.

Bills by Doss Jefferson and others, respectively, against Mrs. M. E. Jackson and another. From decrees for plaintiffs, named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

W. D. Womack and L. R. Wadlington, both of Belzoni, for appellant.

The case of Jones et al. v. Stevens et al., 12 So. 446, it occurs to the writer, settles the question of liability on the part of the appellant, Mrs. M. E. Jackson. In that case it is held by this court "that one who merely receives on an account against the tenant money realized by him from the sale of agricultural produce on which a lien for rent existed, is not liable for such rent."

Sections 2175 and 2238, Code of 1930.

A cropper's contract gives the cropper no legal possession of the premises further than as an employee. The legal possession is in the employer; the cropper is entitled to go upon the land for the purpose of producing, harvesting the crop, but when this is done his possessory right ceases. Before the division of the crop the whole is the property of the landlord and the cropper has no legal title to any part thereof.

17 C. J., p. 382, sec. 11; Section 2238, Code of 1930; Seavey & Sons v. Godbold, 99 Miss. 113, 54 So. 838; Phillips v. Thomas, 128 Miss. 729, 91 So. 420; Judd v. Delta Grocery & Cotton Co., 133 Miss. 866, 98 So. 243; Tonnar v. Washington & Issaquena, 140 Miss. 875, 105 So. 750; McGee v. Carver, 141 Miss. 463, 106 So. 760; Crutcher v. Commercial Bank, 146 Miss. 404, 111 So. 569; Quiver Gin Co. v. Looney, 144 Miss. 709, 111 So. 107; Williams v. Delta Grocery Co., 132 So. 732.

There was no privity of contract between the appellees and the appellant, expressly or impliedly.

The rule which prevents the agent, or trustee, from acting for himself in a matter where his interest would conflict with his duty also prevents him from acting for another whose interest is adverse to that of the principal.

21 R. C. L., p. 827, sec. 11; Wilberger v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 72 Miss. 338, 17 So. 282.

The writer is familiar with the rule that where a question of fact is determined by the chancery court, unless it is manifestly wrong, would not be reversed upon it alone, but it is clear and obvious that the court below manifestly erred in that its decisions were not in accordance with the pleading and the testimony in the case.

McCormick v. Bloom, 75 Miss. 81; Phillips v. Thomas, 91 So. 420; Seavey & Sons v. Godbold, 99 Miss. 112, 54 So. 838; Quiver Gin Co. v. Looney, 111 So. 107.

H. F. Jones, of Belzoni, for appellees.

The sharecroppers, appellees, were the tenants of W. R. Jenkins, and he their landlord. There was no relation of a general agency on the part of Jenkins for the tenants in their contract.

Tenants producing a crop are the owners thereof, and the several landlords, Jackson and Jenkins, would have a lien on crops for rent and furnish.

Bethany v. State, 124 Miss. 870, 87 So. 410; Reynolds v. Polk, 144 Miss. 223, 109 So. 698.

It seems to be the position of appellant that Jenkins was a general agent for his tenants, but this position is not supported by the evidence.

When W. R. Jenkins sold the crops of his tenants and received money in hand which was theirs it was his duty to pay it to them, and nobody else. He became thereupon a trustee for these tenants to the extent of the amount of money held by him to which they were entitled.

Newman v. Tillman, 71 Miss. 26, 13 So. 934.

If the trust property has been transferred to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, or has lost its identity, the beneficial owner must, and under other circumstances may, resort to the personal liability of the wrongdoing trustee.

3 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, sections 1048 and 1058.

Jenkins became a trustee for the amount of money he got for their property, and in turn Mrs. Jackson, not a bona fide purchaser for value, is not in a position to avoid returning the money she received by the breach of trust of W. R. Jenkins, besides Dr. Jackson, her agent, knew how he was receiving this money, whose it was, and that it was subject to a trust, and this was determined by the court from the evidence.

3 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 1047; Bank of Hickory v. McPherson, 102 Miss. 853, 59 So. 934; Isom v. First National Bank et al., 52 Miss. 915; Armour v. Bank, 69 Miss. 705, 11 So. 29.

Under the general rule relating to the violation of a confidential or fiduciary relation, an agent undertaking any business or the performance of any services for another is disabled in equity from dealing with the subject-matter of the agency upon his own account or for his own benefit, and if he does attempt to deal in his own name he will be deemed a constructive trustee for his principal.

65 C. J. 480; 2 C. J. 884; 21 R. C. L., Principal and Agent, par. 92.

Mrs. Jackson does not occupy the position of a bona fide holder, without notice or knowledge, the knowledge of her agent being fully established to the full satisfaction of the chancellor by the evidence.

26 R. C. L., Trusts, par. 84.

Where an agent owed a debt, and undertook to pay that debt by the transfer of his principal's property, and the creditor took it with notice that it was the property of the principal, there is no rule of equity or conscience that would allow the creditor to retain such property or its proceeds against the timely claim of the principal.

Patterson v. Neal, 135 Ala. 482, 33 So. 39; Bowdon Line Works v. Moss, 14 Ala.App. 435, 70 So. 292; 21 R. C. L. 913; Dorrah v. Hill, 73 Miss. 787, 19 So. 961.

A finding by the chancellor, warranted by the evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.

Moise v. Howie, 98 Miss. 30, 53 So. 402.

Argued orally by W. D. Womack, for appellant, and by H. F. Jones, for appellee.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

Appellees, Doss Jefferson, Ellie Jefferson, Horse Gowdy, and Sam Willis, four negroes, filed their separate bills in the chancery court of Humphreys county against appellant, and her farm tenant, W. R. Jenkins, appellees being his share croppers, to recover their shares of crops produced by them during the year 1933, the proceeds of which had been sold by Jenkins, and turned over to appellant. By agreement the four cases were consolidated and tried as one. The trial was had on bills, answers, and proofs, resulting in decrees as follows: For appellee Doss Jefferson, two hundred sixty dollars and three cents; for Horse Gowdy, three hundred eighty-nine dollars and three cents; for Ellie Jefferson, one hundred seventy-eight dollars and sixty-eight cents; and for Sam Willis, two hundred and ninety-nine dollars and seventy-eight cents; with six per cent. interest on each of the amounts from January 1, 1934. From those decrees appellant prosecutes this appeal.

There is little, if any, conflict in the material evidence. Mrs Jackson owned a farm in Humphreys county. Her husband, Dr. J. S. Jackson, had full control of it for her, and had had for twenty years or more. For about twenty years he had rented it annually to Jenkins. He rented it to Jenkins for the year 1933, at a standing rental of one thousand dollars. In addition he advanced Jenkins money with which to, supply and farm the place during the year. Jenkins share-cropped to these four negroes part of the farm for that year; they made the usual share-crop contract, which was that the...