Tinsley v. Craig

• Decision Date: 21 March 1891
• Citation: Tinsley v. Craig, 15 S.W. 897 (Ark. 1891)
• Parties: TINSLEY v. CRAIG.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

15 S.W. 897

TINSLEY v. CRAIG.¹

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 21, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; J. W. BUTLER, Judge.

Mr. Tinsley, pro se. John W. & Jas. M. Stayton, for appellee.

COCKRILL, C. J.

Dunn raised a crop of cotton on Tinsley's land under a parol contract which both parties denominated a "contract upon the shares." Tinsley stated the terms of the contract in the following language, viz.: "I was to furnish the land, team, tools, and feed for team, and Dunn was to do the work in making the crop. Each one was to gather his half of the crop, as near as practicable; and, after being gathered and hauled to the gin, if there was any difference, it was to be equalized. Dunn was to pay me out of his half what he got from me." A part of the crop was removed from the premises, when Tinsley caused the residue to be attached in the field, for the purpose of enforcing the landlord's lien for supplies furnished Dunn. The lien was asserted under the following provision of the act of April 6, 1885, viz.: "In addition to the lien now given by law to landlords, if any landlord, to enable his tenant or employe to make and gather the crop, shall advance such tenant or employe any necessary supplies, either of money, provisions, clothing, stock, or other necessary articles, such landlord shall have a lien upon the crop raised upon the premises for the value of such advances, which lien shall have preference over any mortgage or other conveyance of such crop made by such tenant or employe. Such lien may be enforced by an action of attachment before any court or justice of the peace having jurisdiction, and the lien for advances and for rent may be joined and enforced in the same action." Craig claimed Dunn's interest, and the main question for determination is, was Dunn either a tenant or an employe of Tinsley within the meaning of the act? If he occupied either of those relations, the act applies, and the lien exists. If he occupied neither, it is immaterial to Tinsley whether Craig is the rightful owner of the cotton or not. Inasmuch as the possession was not surrendered, and the contract vested no interest in the land in Dunn, he was not a tenant within the meaning of the previous discussion of this court. Hammock v. Creekmore, 48 Ark. 264, 3 S. W. Rep. 180, and cases cited. Is he an employe within the meaning of the act? It is obvious that the act can apply only to that class of employes who have an interest in the crop, for the act confers a lien upon the crop only. A cropper on shares is an employe, therefore, within the meaning of the act. The court charged the jury that the landlord had no lien for supplies against a cropper on shares. That was prejudicial error, if the evidence would justify the finding that Dunn was a share cropper. In attempting to ascertain the relation in which the parties stood to each other, the circuit court at the trial made the ownership of the crop the test, and charged the jury, among other things, that if they found that the land-owner and the occupant were tenants in common of the crop, no lien existed, and that they should find against the landlord. Ordinarily, when the parties occupy the relation of landlord and tenant, the title to the...