Warren v. Woodard

• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JAMES C. WARREN v. STEPHEN E. WOODARD.

70 N.C. 382

JAMES C. WARREN

v.STEPHEN E. WOODARD.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1874.

The lien of a laborer, who commenced work in January, 1873, attaching by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1868-'69, chap. 206, sec. 9, is not divested in favor of the lien created by the Act of 1872-'73, chap. 133, sec. 1, ratified 1st March, 1873, as that would be impairing a vested right, as well as the obligation of a contract.

CONTROVERSY, submitted without action, to Albertson, J., at Fall Term, 1873, of the Superior Court of CHOWAN county.

The facts, as agreed, are:

The plaintiff, Warren, rented his farm for the year 1873, to one Small, for $1,500. On the 1st of March of that year, Small executed to plaintiff a trust deed, on account of money and supplies contracted to be advanced for $ , conveying in said deed his crops to be raised on said farm during the year. On the 4th of July, 1873, Small executed to Warren another trust deed, to secure payment of rent and further advances, and in that deed conveyed his crops on said farm.

The plaintiff has already received more than sufficient to pay to pay the rent, but not enough to discharge both trusts; and claims the balance of the crops on hand, which was raised on said farm, under the said deeds.

Small, the lessee, on the 1st of January, 1873, contracted with the defendant, Woodard, for his services in making the crop, agreeing to pay him $275. Woodard commenced work the 11th of January, and continued during the entire year. He filed his lien in the Superior Court Clerk's office, but subsequent to the registration of the trust herein before mentioned. Plaintiff knew all the time that the defendant was laboring on the farm.

Defendant claims the balance of the crop after paying rent, to be subject to his lien. Plaintiff claims that all the debts due from Small to him, and secured by the trusts, shall be paid in preference to the demand of the defendant.

The crop on hand is more than sufficient to pay the defendant, but not enough to pay him and plaintiff.

His Honor being of opinion that the defendant's lien was prior to the plaintiff's, give judgment in his favor; from this the plaintiff appealed.

No counsel in this Court for appellant.

A. M. Moore, contra .

RODMAN, J.

We are of opinion, that upon the case agreed the defendant is entitled to judgment. Woodard commenced his work on the farm of the lessee, Small, in January, 1873, and duly filed a notice of his claim within thirty days after the termination of work under his contract, as required by the act of 1869-'70, ch. 206, sec. 9. The liens of the plaintiff which are in controversy are founded upon assignments to him to secure advances of money and supplies to the lessee made subsequently, viz: March and July, 1853.

Section 2 of the act cited, says: “The lien for work on crops or farms, or materials, given by this chapter, shall be preferred to every other lien or encumbrance which attached upon the property subsequent to the time at which the work was commenced, or the materials were furnished.”

This section covers the question between the parties, and we consider that it is not qualified so as to affect the present case by any provisions of that or subsequent acts. Section 6 of that act...