Powell v. State

• Decision Date: 20 July 1888
• Citation: 84 Ala. 444,4 So. 719
• Parties: POWELL v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

4 So. 719

84 Ala. 444

POWELL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 20, 1888

Appeal from county court, Macon county; W. H. HURT, Judge.

Indictment of Wesley Powell for selling or removing cotton upon which another had a lien. Defendant was convicted, and appeals.

Abercrombie & Bilbro and P. S. Holt, for appellant.

T N. McClellan, Atty. Gen., for the State.

STONE C.J.

The judgment of conviction in this case must be reversed for several reasons. The defendant was indicted for selling or removing seed cotton, to which Letcher "had a lawful and valid claim under a written instrument, lien created by law for rent and advances, or other lawful and valid claim verbal or written." Code 1886, § 3835. The indictment follows the form, and is sufficient. Form 77. In Smith v. State, 84 Ala. --- ante, 683, we reviewed Ellerson v. State, 69 Ala. 1, and qualified it in part. The lien, attempted to be established by the testimony in this case, was asserted in three forms: First. A claim for rent of land in 1886,-the land on which the cotton was said to have been grown, which defendant was charged with removing. The testimony shows this lien existed to the extent of $20. Second. It was attempted to be shown that Letcher had made advances to defendant in 1886. And third, that defendant was indebted to him for unpaid rent and advances made to him in 1885. On these several accounts it was claimed that defendant was indebted to Letcher in the sum of about $100. The statutes on which the validity of Letcher's alleged in lien must depend are the following sections of the Code 1886: Sec. 3056. "A landlord has a lien *** on the crop grown on rented lands for the current year, and for advances made in money or other thing of value, *** for the sustenance or well-being of the tenant or his family, or for preparing the ground for cultivation, or for cultivating, gathering, saving, handling, or preparing the crop for market," etc. In Cockburn v. Watkins, 76 Ala. 486; Thompson v. Powell, 77 Ala. 391; and Mooney v. Hough, ante, 19,-we interpreted the foregoing section of the Code, § 3058. "When the tenant fails to pay any part of such rent or advances, and continues his tenancy under the same landlord, on the same or other lands, the balance due therefor shall be held and treated as advances to him by the landlord for the next succeeding year, *** for which a lien shall attach to the crop of such succeeding year." This statute we have also construed in some of its bearings. Cockburn v. Watkins, 76 Ala. 486; Gunter v. Du Bose, 77 Ala. 326; Thompson v. Powell, Id. 391. It is not every advance a landlord may make, even to his tenant, that comes within the statute. It must be of some one or more of the articles enumerated, and for some one or more of the purposes mentioned in the statute. Without this there is no lien....