Lords v. Lava Hot Springs State Bank
| Decision Date | 19 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | 4717 |
| Citation | 256 P. 761,44 Idaho 316 |
| Parties | MARY M. LORDS, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. LAVA HOT SPRINGS STATE BANK, a Corporation, and H. W. HENDERSON, Sheriff of Bannock County, Idaho, Appellants and Cross-Respondents |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
CHATTEL MORTGAGES-CROP MORTGAGE EXECUTED BY VENDOR OF LAND AS AFFECTING PURCHASER-CROPS SOWN BY VENDOR-CROPS SOWN BY PURCHASER-ASSUMPTION OF MORTGAGE BY PURCHASER-EVIDENCE-CROP MORTGAGE GIVEN BY PURCHASER TO VENDOR-EFFECT ON LIEN OF CROP MORTGAGE GIVEN BY VENDOR TO BANK.
1. Purchaser of land on which hay was growing took land subject to mortgage previously executed by vendor on hay crop.
2. Under C. S., sec. 6373, lien of chattel mortgage on crop to be sown or grown attaches thereto when such crop is sown or caused to be sown by mortgagor, but does not attach to crops sown by others, except in so far as mortgagor has or retains interest in crop.
3. Evidence held insufficient to establish that purchaser of land had assumed, or agreed to pay, crop mortgage executed thereon by vendor, or to hold crop subject to such mortgage.
4. Where owners executed crop mortgage to bank on crops to be grown on property, and thereafter sold land to purchasers who executed crop mortgage to secure balance of purchase price, mortgage given by vendor did not attach to grain thereafter sown by purchasers, since vendor did not, by taking mortgage from purchasers, sow or cause to be sown crop of next year, and lien acquired by such mortgage was not such as to subject crop to lien of mortgage given by him to bank or to foreclosure thereunder.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for Bannock County. Hon. Robert M. Terrell, Judge.
Action for conversion. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. No costs to either appellant.
Holden & Coffin, for Appellants and Cross-Respondents.
A mortgage on personal property not owned, but to be subsequently acquired by the mortgagor, is good against him and all claiming under him. (Pierce v. Langdon, 3 Idaho 141, 28 P. 401; Mitchell v. Winslow, 2 Story, 630, F. Cas. No. 9673; Grand Forks National Bank v Minneapolis & N. Elevator Co., 6 N.D. 357, 43 N.W. 808; Ludlum v. Rothschild, 41 Minn. 218, 43 N.W. 137.)
P. C O'Malley, for Respondent and Cross-Appellant.
This case comes squarely under C. S., sec. 6373, defining what personal property may be mortgaged.
This crop that was seized by the sheriff was not sown, grown, raised or harvested by A. B. Cheney, the mortgagor under the crop mortgage, and the said Cheney did not retain any interest in the crop that would be subject to the chattel mortgage. (Collins v. Brown, 19 Idaho 360, 114 P. 671.)
This was an action for conversion and Mrs. Lords had the title and right to possession of the property converted. (Portland Seed Co. v. Clark, 35 Idaho 44, 204 P. 146.)
Plaintiff, respondent and cross-appellant, a married woman, brought this action against appellants, Lava Hot Springs State Bank and H. W. Henderson, for conversion of a crop consisting of 850 bushels of wheat and 15 tons of hay. At the close of all the evidence, each party moved for a directed verdict. The court directed a verdict for plaintiff for the value of the wheat. Defendants appeal from the judgment. Plaintiff, by cross-appeal, assigns as error the failure of the court to direct a verdict in her favor also as to the value of the hay.
On November 1, 1921, A. B. Cheney and wife, owners of the land upon which the crops in controversy were grown, to secure their note in the sum of $ 709.37, due May 1, 1922, executed a crop mortgage to the defendant bank upon all the crop grown thereon during the years 1922 to 1925. This mortgage was filed of record December 28, 1921.
On February 21, 1923, Cheney, by a conditional sale contract, agreed to convey the land to N.D. Lords, husband of plaintiff, and upon the same date Lords and plaintiff executed to Cheney a crop mortgage upon all crops sown and grown upon these lands during 1923, 1924 and 1925, to secure the sum of $ 3,000, payable $ 1,000 annually upon the first day of each following December. The giving of this mortgage is recited therein as a part of the agreement.
Lords, with plaintiff, his wife, and family, moved upon the land in March, 1923, and while they were so living there planted the wheat seed of the crop in controversy. Plaintiff alleged that she and the children did practically all the work and labor in planting, cultivating, producing and harvesting the crop; that her husband deserted and abandoned her and the family and farm, and left her in control and management of the farm; and that she was, on the date of the seizure, the owner and in the lawful, rightful and peaceable possession of the crop.
The bank, in November, 1923, through the sheriff, took possession of and sold the hay and wheat crop under foreclosure of the Cheney mortgage to the bank, and defendants pleaded such taking and sale thereunder in defense of this action.
Cheney having sold the land upon which the hay was growing, the purchaser took subject to the mortgage upon the hay crop. A different question is presented as to the wheat...
To continue reading
Request your trial