Knox v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 31 March 1853
• Citation: 18 Mo. 243
• Parties: KNOX, Respondent, v. HUNT & PORTER, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

18 Mo. 243

KNOX, Respondent,

v.HUNT & PORTER, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1853.

1. A landlord has a hen upon the crops grown on the demised premises in any year for the rent of that year, (R. C. 1845,) but this lien can only be enforced by process of law. Rent may be reserved in such a way that the landlord will not be entitled to his lien.

2. The hen continues eight months, and during that time, the landlord may take steps to subject the crop to the payment of the rent. If the property remains in specie in the hands of an assignee, he may, during the continuance of the lien, seize it under process, or might, if it was consumed, hold the assignee accountable for its value, if the assignment was voluntary, or taken with a knowledge of the existence of the lien. The crop, during the continuance of the lien, would not be subject to the process of the law at the suit of any other creditor, without payment of the rent, as the lien of the landlord would protect it from sale. Nothing can be seized under execution which cannot be sold.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Glover & Richardson, for appellants.

Hunt was entitled to a lien on the crop for the rent accruing for the year, or at least for so much thereof as properly represented the farming lands, and the court ought not to have excluded the evidence that would have established the amount thereof. The letter of the law is not inconsistent with this view, and there is no difficulty in practice under it. The amount of the rent is uncertain, and must be liquidated by proof; but this is the case, in many instances, with all liens. The builder must show the amount of his demand. The claimant on account of stores or supplies to a boat must establish his. If Hunt had a lien on the property taken and carried away by himself and Porter, that lien was a special property, which he had the right to oppose to the plaintiff's claim for damages.

Knox & Kellogg, for respondent.

Two questions arise. 1. Whether Hunt had a lien. 2. If he did, whether he asserted it in a legal or justifiable manner.

The obvious intent of the law entitled an act concerning landlords and tenants is, to provide for the securing of the rent for lands used for agricultural purposes, and not those rented and used as Hunt's lands are used, chiefly for coal mining. The law is defective, in not furnishing the machinery necessary to enforce it. If this lien can be enforced at all, it can only be done where there is a fixed annual rent, and not where the rent is reserved as it is in this case. (Tift v. Virden, 11 S. & M. 153; 8 Black. 86; 11 Illinois, 527; 1 Bay 315, 443.) Nor can it be enforced without legal process. (6 Yerg. 267-9; Ib. 252, 258, 260; 7 Yerg. 494-7.)

SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis, commenced by the plaintiff, Knox, against the defendants, Hunt and Porter in October, 1848. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

On the 9th July, 1847, Hunt, the defendant, leased to E. K. Dodge his farm in St. Louis county, with all the coal mines in and upon the same, then opened or to be thereafter opened, for the term of six years, to commence from the date of the lease, for the sum of seven thousand dollars; one thousand dollars of which was to be paid on or before the 15th July, 1847; three thousand dollars on the first of October, 1848; and the balance...