Kennedy v. Reames, CASE No. 1079.

• Decision Date: 14 September 1881
• Docket Number: CASE No. 1079.
• Citation: 15 S.C. 548
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: KENNEDY v. REAMES.

15 S.C. 548

KENNEDY

v.REAMES.

CASE No. 1079.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Sept. 14th, 1881.

1. Quere: Can a laborer who contracts for a share of the crop as payment for his services, execute a valid agricultural lien upon the crop which is to be made by his labor?

2. Where the relation of landlord and tenant of a farm exists, the former has a preferred statutory lien upon the crops made thereon by the latter, to the extent of one-third of such crops. 16 Stat. 411, § 5.

3. This agricultural lien act being a new law, the courts cannot, for its violation, go beyond the remedy afforded by it, or enforce any other remedy.

4. A creditor of one who had given a lien upon his crop, received in good faith a part of such crop and applied it to payment of his demand. Held, that the creditor was not liable to the lienee for conversion of this crop, or for its value in money.

Before THOMSON, J., Sumter, February, 1881.

Action commenced in the Court of Common Pleas, January 2d, 1879, by William G. Kennedy against Frederick L. Reames and Washington Miller. Miller was living upon the land on which the crop in dispute was made. Reames owned the land, but did not reside upon it. The opinion states the case.

Mr. Joseph H. Earle, for appellant.

Messrs. Haynsworth & Cooper, contra.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

MCGOWAN, A. J.

About January 1st, 1878, Washington Miller agreed with his co-defendant, Frederick L. Reames, to cultivate a certain farm belonging to the said Reames, (who was also to furnish the stock), and to receive for his labor one-third of the crop to be produced upon the place, subject, however, to the payment of any claim Reames might have against Miller for money or supplies which might be advanced to him during the year. This agreement was verbal, but under it Miller went into possession of the farm. He got some supplies from Reames, and, desiring more, April 9th, 1878, gave to the plaintiff, Kennedy, a lien under the act of March 4th, 1878, (16 Stat. 411), purporting to be on all the crop to be made on the farm that year, and also a mortgage of “four shoats,” to secure an advance for agricultural purposes to be made by the said plaintiff. The “shoats” were stolen and do not enter into the case. The instrument given to the plaintiff was registered, and an advance to the extent of $40 made.

There was made upon the place that year five bales of cotton and a small amount of corn. The cotton, at different times in the autumn of the year, was received by Reames and the proceeds retained, but did not satisfy his share of two-thirds and advances. The corn was divided, and one-third, forty or fifty bushels, was left in the hands of Miller, who afterwards disposed of it. In December the plaintiff took out under the act an agriculturalwarrant against Miller. When the sheriff, with the warrant, went on the place the cotton was not there, and the defendant, Reames, claimed the corn also to satisfy the balance of his claim for advances. The sheriff did not seize the corn, saying “he had no instruction to take it.” He did seize some small articles of inconsiderable value, from which nothing was realized. The plaintiff then brought this action in the Court of Common Pleas against both Reames and Miller, praying that the five bales of cotton which Reames got be produced to satisfy his debt, or that the money arising from the sale should be paid into court. The case was heard by Judge Thomson, who ordered the complaint to be so amended as to be a simple action for money, and that being done, he gave judgment for $40 and interest for the plaintiff, against the defendant, Reames, who appeals to this court upon the following exceptions:

“1. Because Washington Miller was an employee of the defendant, Reames, and not a ‘cultivator of the soil’ in the sense of the act of 1878.

2. Because, under the agreement between the defendant, Reames, and Miller, he (Miller) had no title to any part of the produce or crop until the same had been divided and his portion delivered to him by Reames.

3. Because Miller did not own such an interest in the crop as was subject to an agricultural lien.

4. Because the defendant, Reames, had no actual notice of the plaintiff's lien, and having sold the cotton before notice was given him of such lien, and before any demand was made upon him for said cotton, he is not liable for conversion.

5. Because the remedy of the plaintiff, if any, was an action in rem.

6. Because the plaintiff was bound to exhaust the crop which he found in defendant, Miller's, possession before proceeding against defendant, Reames.”

In the view which the court takes it will not be necessary to consider exceptions first, second, third and sixth, as to the character of the relation which Miller bore to Reames in the cultivation of his farm, whether as tenant or mere employee. We incline to think that he was a mere hireling, to be paid in kind and had no right to give a lien upon the crop which belonged to Reames until the third part was delivered to Miller in payment for his labor. Upon this subject see Huff v. Watkins, 15 S.C. 82.

But for the purposes of the case let us assume that Miller was a “cultivator of the soil” in the sense of the act of 1878, and had such an interest in the crop to be produced by his labor, assisted by the stock and lands of Reames, as to enable him in advance to subject it to a legal lien; and it does not follow, even in this view, that the plaintiff had the right to recover from Reames the $40 in money which he advanced to Miller, and for which he had only his agricultural lien. Upon this assumption what were the relative rights of the parties? If Miller was an independent cultivator of the soil, so as to be able to make the lien, it must have been as tenant, and, if so, Reames was his landlord. The soil, of which Miller was the cultivator, and the stock used...