Martin v. Schichtl
| Decision Date | 08 June 1895 |
| Citation | 31 S.W. 458 |
| Parties | MARTIN et al. v. SCHICHTL et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
E. A. Bolton, for appellants. Sam Frauenthal and G. W. Rice, for appellees.
On the 24th of January, 1890, Mrs. Elizabeth W. Rice bargained and sold certain land to John N. Schichtl at and for the price and sum of $800, and received from him his five promissory notes for the purchase money, each for the sum of $160, payable respectively on the 1st day of November in the years 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, and 1894, and bearing 10 per cent. per annum interest from date until paid. She and her husband on the same day conveyed the land to Schichtl, and in the deed stated the consideration, described the notes, and reserved a lien on the lands, and all the crops produced on them, to secure the payment of the same. The lien reserved on the crops was described as a landlord's lien. The deed was acknowledged by the grantors on the day of its execution.
On the 14th of May, 1892, Schichtl mortgaged to Martin & Harton all the crops produced by him in that year, and other property, to secure the payment of his note to them for $260.97, and all other sums of money he would owe to them on the 1st day of the following November. At and before the execution of this mortgage, Martin & Harton had actual notice of the lien reserved on the crops by Mrs. Rice. The mortgage was acknowledged and filed for record on the 24th of May, 1892, and the deed to the lands was not filed until some time afterwards.
During the year 1892, Schichtl raised on the land conveyed to him by Mrs. Rice and her husband a crop of corn and cotton. Martin & Harton, under their mortgage, and Mrs. Rice, under the reservation in her deed, claim a lien on the crop. Which is the superior lien? The chancery court decided in favor of Mrs. Rice, and decreed accordingly.
In Apperson v. Moore, 30 Ark. 56, which was a suit in equity on the mortgage of a future crop, it was held the lien of a mortgage on an unplanted crop attaches, in equity, as soon as the subject of the mortgage comes into existence; and can be enforced, in a proceeding to foreclose, against the mortgagor, and those holding under him with record notice. This power was recognized and confirmed by an act of the general assembly, approved February 11, 1875, which made mortgages on crops to be planted valid.
It has been frequently held that a reservation in a lease of a farm of a lien on crops not in esse, which are to be grown on the land, as security for the payment of a stipulated rent, is sufficient to hold the crops so soon as they come into existence. Baxter v. Bush, 29 Vt. 465.
The reservation of the lien on crops in this case was an equitable mortgage. If a mortgage on a crop before it is planted, to secure an ordinary debt, and the lien of the lessor reserved in the lease, attach to the crop so soon as it is planted, the lien reserved by Mrs. Rice certainly attached and held the crops as a security for the payment of the purchase money.
The fact that the reservation is inconsistent with and repugnant to the grant in the deed does not defeat the lien. Reservations of easements, like a right of way in conveyances of land, and in leases of "grass, herbage, feeding, and pasturage," have been upheld, and yet they are inconsistent with the grant. Rose v. Bunn, 21 N. Y. 275.
The case of Darling v. Robbins, 60 Vt. 347, 15 Atl. 177, sustains our view. In that case it was held that a "reservation in a warranty deed of land of the crops that might be produced thereon, to secure the interest on the purchase money, is a valid lien, and may be foreclosed." The difference between this and that case is, the lien reserved on the crops in the former is to secure the payment of the notes given for the purchase money, instead of the interest alone, as in the latter case. But the rule is the same, and sustains the lien in both cases.
In Walters v. Meyer, 39 Ark. 560, Watson v. Pugh, 51 Ark. 218, 10 S. W. 493, and Quertermous v. Hatfield, 54 Ark. 16, 14 S. W. 1096, cited by appellants, no lien...
To continue reading
Request your trial