Tucker v. Speer

• Decision Date: 01 May 1919
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 6
• Citation: 202 Ala. 604,81 So. 546
• Parties: TUCKER v. SPEER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

81 So. 546

202 Ala. 604

TUCKER v. SPEER.

7 Div. 6

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 1, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.

Action by John Speer against J.E. Tucker. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, Acts 1911, p. 450. Reversed and remanded.

Lee White & Lusk, of Gadsden, for appellant.

Hugh Reed, of Center, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

Speer (appellee) instituted this action against Tucker (appellant) to enforce the payment to plaintiff of $50 that, plaintiff asserts in pleading and evidence, was due him as assignee of the agricultural laborer's lien (Gen.Acts 1915, p. 112 amending Code, § 4743) which then existed in favor of one Lingerfelt, who had cultivated, and himself and through one Hays gathered, the cotton crop grown on defendant's land during the year 1917. The amendatory act, just cited created, as between Tucker and Lingerfelt, the relation of employer and employe. The amendatory act, by expressly assimilating the system prevailing with respect to the liens given landlords, authorizes the assignment of the laborer's lien, and clothes his assignee with the same rights the laborer has at the time he effects a valid assignment. Code, § 4743; Farrow v. Wooley, 149 Ala. 373, 376, 377, 43 So. 144; Ballard v. Mayfield, 107 Ala. 396, 18 So. 29. The amendatory act provides that--

"Such liens shall have the same force and effect, and shall be enforced in the same manner, and under the same conditions, and in the same cases as the lien in favor of a landlord." (Italics supplied.)

The title to the crop in question was in Tucker, the employer. Lingerfelt or his assignee having a lien, only, upon it; the measure of the laborer's lien being in a sum equal to the "value of the portion of the crop to which he is (was) entitled"--in this instance originally one-half. It was shown without dispute that Lingerfelt, to quote the recitals of the bill of exceptions, "sold the remainder of any crop to Will Hays, which was agreeable to the defendant. *** Hays was to gather the balance of the crop and pay me $50 out of each bale of cotton. We estimated that there was three bales in the field. *** When I turned the crop over to Hays I turned over all my interest in it, and he took my place under my contract with defendant." Assuming the employer's (Tucker's) agreement thereto or acquiescence therein this contract effected to accomplish an assignment to Hays of all the interest and rights, including the lien, of Lingerfelt in or upon the crop, Lingerfelt taking from Hays his promise to pay $50 per bale therefor. Lingerfelt thus divested himself of the lien with which he was invested under the amendatory act, and accepted a promise from Hays to pay him $50 per bale that was not...