Storthz v. Smith

• Decision Date: 27 October 1913
• Parties: STORTHZ v. SMITH.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

161 S.W. 183

STORTHZ v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 27, 1913.

Appeal from Faulkner Chancery Court; Jordan Sellers, Chancellor.

Action by S. C. Smith against L. Storthz. From the decree, defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.

W. T. Tucker, of Little Rock, for appellant. R. W. Robins, of Conway, for appellee.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

Appellant, L. Storthz, owned a farm in Faulkner county, Ark., and rented a portion of it to one Robert Carr to cultivate during the year 1911. Before the time passed to plant the crop, Carr died, and appellant agreed with the latter's widow that she should carry out the rental contract; the effect of the contract, as disclosed in the evidence, being to constitute a new rental contract between appellant and Mrs. Carr. Mrs. Carr subrented 10 acres of the land to one Gordon, who raised a crop thereon, and mortgaged it, before maturity, to appellee, S. G. Smith, a merchant in Conway, Ark., to secure an account for supplies. Gordon left before the crop was gathered, and Mrs. Carr authorized appellant's agent to take possession of it for the purpose of gathering it to pay the rent.

Appellee Smith instituted this action in the chancery court of Faulkner county to foreclose his mortgage, making Gordon, Mrs. Carr, and appellant defendants; and he asked that a receiver be appointed by the court to take charge of the crop, and the chancellor in vacation made an order for the appointment of a receiver. Appellant resisted this order on the ground that he was solvent and was therefore accountable for the crop, and also offered to make bond for the delivery of the crop according to the orders of the court.

Appellant claims that there were 32 acres of the land and that he was to be paid $6 an acre for it, and the proof introduced on his part tends to establish that contention. The proof, however, adduced by appellee, which the court accepted as true, tends to establish the acreage of the land rented at only 20 acres, and that Gordon cultivated 10 acres thereof. It also shows that only the 10 acres cultivated by Gordon could be put in cultivation that year; the remainder being covered at planting time by overflow water. The chancellor found that appellant was only entitled to enforce a lien for the sum of $60, being $6 per acre on the 10 acres of land on which was the Gordon crop, and that the balance of proceeds of the crop, which was sold under order of the court, should be paid over to appellee Smith on his mortgage debt. A decree to that effect was rendered, and all of the costs of the cause, including the fee of the receiver and other expenses of the receivership, were awarded against appellant. It is insisted on behalf of appellant that the decree was erroneous in not awarding him the full amount of rent which he claimed; in other words, it is contended that a lien should be declared in his favor against the crop for rent on 32 acres of land at...