Roberts v. Bean, 5633

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
• Writing for the Court: MCNAUGHTON, J.
• Citation: 50 Idaho 680,299 P. 1081
• Decision Date: 21 May 1931
• Docket Number: 5633
• Parties: WM. ROBERTS, Respondent, v. NELLIE P. BEAN, Appellant

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

[50 Idaho 681] 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.

[50 Idaho 682] 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...