A
clause in the contract, that it is to "hold everything
made on the land," is not a reservation of subsequently
made crops, so as to confer a lien; and if it constitutes a
valid mortgage on them, it is subordinate to subsequent
agricultural liens for advances, even though the subsequent
lienholders have actual notice thereof.
The
plaintiffs contracted in writing, on the 1st day of January
1882, to sell to the defendants Hines a tract of land, and
the following is a copy of that contract:
"State
of North Carolina, Edgecombe county. Articles of agreement
between John I. Killebrew and Joshua Bullock, of the first
part, and Joshua Hines, Ashley Hines, and Watson Hines, of
the second part, witnesseth that the said Hineses are to
pay to Killebrew & Bullock fifteen bales of good cotton
each year for ten years. Then the said Killebrew & Bullock
are to give the said Hineses a good deed in fee for the B
W. Barnes tract of land. In case the said Hineses fail to
make a full payment any one year, the balance may stand
over for the year; but, if they fail any two years in
succession, then the contract is void, and they shall pay
rent or pay a forfeit to the said Killebrew & Bullock. This
contract is to hold everything made on the land, unless
otherwise agreed by Killebrew & Bullock. Given under our
hands and seals.
"A
HINES. [Seal.]
"WATSON
HINES. [Seal.]
"JOSHUA
X (his mark.) HINES. [Seal.]
"Witness:
JAS. W. TAYLOR.
"The
object of this agreement is, if the said Hineses pay us 150
bales of good cotton, we bind ourselves to make them a good
deed for the whole of the B. W. Barnes tract of land. We
bind ourselves and our administrators this 1st day of
January, 1882. KILLEBREW & BULLOCK.
"Witness:
JAS. W. TAYLOR."
Under
this contract the Hineses went into the possession of and
cultivated the land. Afterwards, on the 18th day of December,
1882, this action was brought to recover from them (the
Hineses) the possession of the crops produced during the year
1882, (the same being cotton which had been baled;) they
having failed to deliver any cotton under the contract or as
rent. In aid of the action, the plaintiffs availed themselves
of the provisional remedy of
claim and delivery, and under and in pursuance of the same
the sheriff seized 36 bales of cotton. Of these, 24, as
alleged, were produced on the land mentioned. The defendant
R. S. Wells was allowed to become a party defendant, and,
having given the undertaking required in such cases, the
cotton was delivered to him. He answered, and alleged as a
defense that on the 18th day of January, 1882, the Hineses
executed to him agricultural liens for supplies to make the
crop on the land, which were duly registered; that he
furnished such supplies as contemplated by such liens, etc.,
and was by virtue of the same entitled to the cotton, etc.
Afterwards, by consent of parties, it was referred to a
referee to hear and determine the issues of law and fact, and
make report, etc. The referee made report, the material parts
of which are as follows:
"(1)
That plaintiffs, owning a tract of land called the
'Barnes Tract,' contracted, on January 1, 1882, to
sell the same to defendants Ashley Hines, Joshua Hines, and
Watson Hines, who thereupon took possession. A copy of said
unrecorded contract is herewith filed, according to the
terms of which said vendees agreed to pay plaintiffs on the
purchase money fifteen bales of cotton in the year 1882.
(2) That no part of said fifteen bales was paid, except two
bales paid by one Lyon Barnes, who occupied part of the
land, and who, in the year 1882, paid plaintiffs two bales
cotton. That, at the time said contract was made, it was
agreed by all parties that Lyon Barnes' payment should
be a credit on the fifteen-bale payment. (3) That
plaintiffs made certain advances to vendees, defendants, to
enable them to make the crop on said Barnes place, viz.:
|
Three tons kainit and one "half ton guano, worth
..
|
$64 00
|
|
Oats ..............................................
|
10 00
|
|
Meat ...............................................
|
3 80
|
|
Cross saw ..........................................
|
3 50
|
|
Total ......................................
|
$81 30
|
"(4)
That said vendees executed agricultural liens to defendant R.
S. Wells upon the crops to be raised on the Barnes place in
1882; said Wells agreeing to furnish supplies to enable them
to make said crops. Plaintiffs did not authorize said Wells
to furnish said advances; and said Wells was notified, when
he agreed to furnish said supplies, by one of the vendees,
that plaintiffs would be entitled to thirteen bales of the
crop of 1882. Said liens were for different amounts, (and are
herewith filed,) and by different parties, viz.: Ashley
Hines, to the amount of $265; Joshua Hines, to the amount of
$200, and one-third of $400, equal to $133, total, $333; so
that the total amount for which liens were given was $598.
That said Wells, under said liens, made advances to the
amount of said liens. (5) That in 1882 said vendees raised on
the land seventeen bales, not counting the Lyon Barnes
account above, which seventeen bales were delivered to said
Wells, and were worth, December 1, 1882, the sum of $605.31.
(6) That thirteen bales of the cotton were worth, December 1,
1882, $462.80."
From
these facts the referee finds the following conclusions of
law, viz.: "(1) That plaintiffs had a right, under said
contract, to demand fifteen bales of cotton of the crop of
1882, less the two bales paid them by Lyon Barnes. (2) That
plaintiffs' right to demand said thirteen bales was not
divested by the liens executed to defendant R. S. Wells. (3)
That plaintiffs had no lien on the crops of 1882 to secure
the advances made by them. (4) That plaintiffs are entitled
to recover from defendant R. S. Wells the sum of $462.80,
with interest from December 1, 1882, (that is, the sum of
$639.82,) with interest on $462.80 from April 15, 1889, till
paid."
The
plaintiffs filed exceptions to this report, as follows:
"(1) He ought to have distinctly found that the
advancement made by the plaintiffs to the defendants (amounts
in value to $81.30, on January 1, 1883) were made during the
year 1882, to enable the defendants to cultivate the crops of
that year in the lands described in the pleadings. (2) That
he also erred in not declaring, as a matter of law, that the
plaintiffs, vendors, and owners of the land were entitled to
the increase or produce of the land; that is, to all the
cotton in controversy in this action, (of the value of
$605.31, with interest from December 1, 1882,) whether the
whole of this amount was or was not necessary to satisfy such
portion of the debt for the land as was then past due. (3)
That the referee erred in not allowing the plaintiffs the
amount of their said advance, ($81.30,) and interest."
The defendant Wells likewise filed exceptions thereto as
follows: "The defendants except to the report herein,
for that (1) he errs in his conclusions of law Nos. 1, 2, and
4; (2) he errs in overruling the motion made by the counsel
for the defendants, that the action had been dismissed by a
former order of this court; (3) he erred in that he failed to
find the value of the rent of the said land for the year
1882." The court overruled the exceptions, both of the
plaintiffs and the defendant Wells, and gave judgment in
accordance with the report. The plaintiffs and the defendant,
having excepted, appealed to this court. The plaintiffs filed
exceptions to the judgment, whereof the following is a copy:
"The plaintiffs above named except to the judgment above
described on the following grounds: (1) His honor erred in
overruling the plaintiffs' first exception to the
referee's report; (2) his honor erred in overruling their
second exception; (3) he erred in overruling their third
exception; (4) he erred in overruling their fourth exception.
The plaintiffs insist that his honor ought to have decided
(1) that the plaintiffs, as landlords, were entitled to
judgment, not only for rent, but also for the advancements
made by them; (2) that the plaintiffs, as owners of the land,
and holders of the legal title, ought to have had judgment
for the full value of the cotton seized at the commencement
of this action, and delivered to R. S. Wells, upon his
intervening and giving bond."
Bunn & Battle and J. L. Bridgers, for plaintiffs.
F. A.
Woodard and Strong, Gray & Stamps, for defendants.
SHEPHERD,
J., (after stating the facts as above.)
The
controversy in this case is between Wells, whose advances in
money
and supplies (which are secured by a registered agricultural
lien) contributed materially to the making of the crops, and
the plaintiffs, whose claim is based upon their legal title
to the land upon which the crop was made, as well as upon the
particular provisions of the unregistered contract to convey.
It is well settled that, so far as the questions involved in
this action are concerned, a vendee let into possession under
a contract of purchase stands on the same footings as a
mortgagor in possession. Jones v. Boyd, 80 N.C. 262.
In discussing, therefore, the interesting questions before
us, the reasons and authorities applicable to the one will
necessarily apply to the other. Without passing upon the
contention of Wells that by a proper construction of the
agreement the vendees were entitled to the possession for at
least two years, and that nothing was due the plaintiffs
until the expiration of that time, and adopting the
interpretation claimed by the plaintiffs, that upon the
failure of the vendees to make the first...
