Roberts v. Bean

• Citation: 50 Idaho 680,299 P. 1081
• Decision Date: 21 May 1931
• Docket Number: 5633
• Parties: WM. ROBERTS, Respondent, v. NELLIE P. BEAN, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

299 P. 1081

50 Idaho 680

WM. ROBERTS, Respondent, v. NELLIE P. BEAN, Appellant

No. 5633

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 21, 1931

AGRICULTURE-FARM LABOR LIEN-LANDLORD AND TENANT-CROP MORTGAGE.

1. Farm laborer held entitled to lien for labor, though performing nonlienable labor, where contract fixed wages, and hours devoted to nonlienable and lienable labor were fixed (C. S sec. 7372).

2. Lease providing for landlord's lien on tenant's share held subject to laborer's lien on tenant's share though executed and filed as mortgage (C. S., sec. 7372).

3. Farm laborer working on different crops may enforce lien against whole or any part of crop (C. S., sec. 7373c, as added by Laws 1923, chap. 33).

4. Landlord appropriating crop subject to labor lien and of greater value than lien held liable to personal judgment to laborer for amount of lien (C. S., secs. 7372 and 7373c, as added by Laws 1923, chap. 33).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for Bannock County. Hon. Ralph W. Adair, Judge.

Action to foreclose farm laborer's lien. Judgment for plaintiff. Modified and affirmed.

Judgment modified. Cause remanded with directions. Costs to respondent. Petition for rehearing denied.

Guy L Tyler and Carl C. Christensen, for Appellant.

Where a farm laborer performs services for which he is to be compensated under entire contract embracing lienable and nonlienable items, he is only entitled to lien for lienable items when value thereof can be distinguished from nonlienable items, and when the value of services cannot be distinguished lien must fail. (Wheatcroft v. Griffiths, 42 Idaho 231, 245 P. 71.)

The landlord's interest in any crop, when the premises are leased in consideration of a share of the crops as rental, is not subject to a farm laborer's lien for services rendered to the tenant in maturing such crop. (C. S., sec. 7372; Farm Credit Corp. v. Rigby Nat. Bank, 49 Idaho 444, 290 P. 211.)

H. J. Swanson, for Respondent.

In Idaho, where land is leased on the terms that the rent is paid by the landlord receiving a designated portion of the crops, each party has at all times an ownership in the crops proportionate to the share he will ultimately receive. (Devereaux Mtg. Co. v. Walker, 46 Idaho 431, 268 P. 37.)

Where the personal property, which is subject to the lien, is gone, the lien claimant can still recover a money judgment. (Sec. 7375, C. S., as amended by 1923 Idaho Sess. Laws, chap. 24, p. 27; Ann. Cas. 1912A, p. 129; 18 R. C. L., p. 991, sec. 138; 27 Cyc. 432; Backman v. Douglas, 46 Idaho 671, 270 P. 618.)

MCNAUGHTON, J. Budge, Givens and Varian, JJ., concur.

OPINION

MCNAUGHTON, J.

This is an action on a laborer's claim of lien for wages against crops, principally a hay crop. The action is against the land owner and her tenant. The tenant defaulted, but the land owner defended. Judgment was entered against the tenant for $ 465 balance in wages, and against the owner for $ 389.88, which the trial court found to be protected by lien against crops appropriated by the land owner. The owner appeals.

By appropriate assignments the judgment is challenged on two general grounds:

1st. That the lien claim failed because part of the services under a lump sum price contract of employment were for items of service nonlienable, which under the evidence could not be segregated from lienable items.

2d. That any statutory lien in behalf of the laborer was inferior to the lien of the land owner contained in the lease of land upon which the crops were raised.

The contract of employment was by the month at $ 90 per month. Respondent worked from March 15th to September 15th, six months, and was paid on account of said labor only $ 75.

Although the labor was principally field labor in producing wheat, oats, barley and hay, it is claimed by appellant that claimant devoted a considerable portion of the time employed at milking and other chores which is not lienable labor. This developed on cross-examination but no considerable amount of time was shown to have been devoted to nonlienable labor except milking. It appears claimant spent "about" an hour each morning and evening milking three or four cows. He testified he helped clean the barns "mighty seldom. I was in the field most of the time; that was Timmons' work." He also said "we done a lot of repairing fences." It was not shown what if any amount of time he personally spent at fence repairing. From the whole testimony it appears quite clearly that his job, as contemplated by the contract of employment, consisted of field work, caring for the horses he used in the field, and in assisting in milking night and morning.

Appellant, on this phase of the case, relies on Wheatcroft v. Griffiths, 42 Idaho 231, 245 P. 71. In that case, "The trial court found that appellants' labor consisted in feeding livestock, milking cows, fixing fences and other general farm duties, and that they performed no labor whatever upon the crops of hay sought to be charged with lien during the months of November and December, 1920, or the months of January, February, March and April, 1921. He further found that in the months of May, June, July, August, September and October, 1921, 'the plaintiffs continued to perform general farm labor and worked a portion of the time upon the crop of hay, but as to what portion of time the evidence is indefinite and uncertain, and the court is unable to determine from the testimony what labor was performed by either of the plaintiffs upon said crop, or segregate the time so spent from the time occupied in general farm labor. '"

Commenting on this, the supreme court said: "During all of the period appellants were at labor on items of work for which they were entitled to a lien, they were at the same time engaged in performing services for which there is no lien such as milking. Griffiths, it is true, testified that the milking consumed an hour and a half night and morning, each day, but there is no evidence to show the value of the separate items of labor," and announced the rule as follows: "If the value of the lienable services cannot be distinguished from the value of the nonlienable services, the lien must fail." It is appellant's contention in this case that there being no...