Miller County Bank & Trust Company v. Beasley

• Decision Date: 16 June 1924
• Docket Number: 54
• Parties: MILLER COUNTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. BEASLEY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

262 S.W. 981

165 Ark. 44

MILLER COUNTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. BEASLEY

No. 54

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 16, 1924

Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; J. H. McCollum, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

William H. Arnold, Jr., for appellant.

The money was Austin's, and the bank had the right to make the credit. The law of the case is well stated in 7 Corpus Juris, p. 658. See also 36 A.D. 487, 55 N.Y.S. 941; 69 Ark 47. Even if the money was Beasley's, yet he did not notify the bank that it was his money, or that Austin held it as his agent, or in trust. As to the relation between the lessor and sublessee, reference is made to 24 Cyc. 1183, and cases cited in note thereto; Id. 1176; 43 S.W. 556. The lower court erred in holding that C. & M. Digest, § 6892, changed the common-law rule that there is no privity of contract or estate between a landlord and a subtenant. That statute was only intended to limit the rights of the landlord. It does not mean that the subtenant is liable directly to the landlord, and was not passed for the landlord's benefit, but to limit the extent of his lien. See also C. & M. Digest, § 6895.

Gustavus G. Pope, for appellee.

There is no dispute as to the money involved being the proceeds of rent cotton on lands rented to Willis Austin, and the crop raised by Ed. Johnson. The bank was duly notified when it was deposited, and Beasley informed the president of the bank that it belonged to him for rents before the note of Austin was due. C. & M. Dig., §§ 6880, 6894. It is immaterial whether Austin subrented to Johnson or not, or whether he acted as Beasley's agent. He had no authority to collect the rent either way. A landlord's lien is superior to any other lien, and, even if the Austin note had matured, and if the bank had a right to claim a lien, still it would have been inferior to the landlord's lien. 151 Ark. 405; Id. 145. Beasley as landlord had the right to the proceeds of the rent cotton deposited in the banks identified as this was. 165 P. 682; 222 S.W. 859.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

C. A Beasley owned a small farm which he rented to W. A. Austin for the year 1922. Austin subrented a portion thereof to Ed Johnson for a fourth of the cotton. Johnson raised two bales of cotton, one-fourth of the proceeds of which amounted to $ 57.83, and this amount he deposited with the appellant bank to the credit of Austin, who delivered the certificate of deposit to Beasley in the early fall. On January 4, 1923, Austin gave Beasley a check on the bank for the amount of the deposit, but the bank refused payment upon the ground that it had credited the amount of the deposit to a past-due note of Austin payable to the bank.

At the conclusion of all the testimony the court instructed the jury that Beasley was entitled to one-fourth of the proceeds of the cotton, and that the bank had no right to credit this amount to Austin's note to it, and to return a verdict for Beasley for the amount thereof--this suit having been brought to recover this money.

The jury returned a verdict in accordance with this instruction, and from the judgment pronounced thereon is this appeal.

The testimony on behalf of Beasley was to the effect that, about the time the money was deposited, and before it was applied to Austin's note, Beasley notified Booker, the president of the bank, that the deposit was a part of the proceeds of the sale of Johnson's cotton, on which he had a landlord's lien; but, inasmuch as the verdict was directed against the bank, we must, of course, view the testimony in the light most favorable to it.

Mr. Booker denied that Beasley had told him about Johnson, but he admitted that he knew Austin was himself a tenant, and that he had a subtenant, and that Austin had stated to him that he would have some rent due from his tenant, and Austin agreed to apply this rent to his debt to the bank.

Johnson, the subtenant, was a colored man, and Booker admitted that, before Johnson paid his rent, Austin had told him "this darkey would be in to put some money there--rent he owed him."

We think it clearly appears from Booker's admissions that he knew, before...