Whitaker v. Smith

• Decision Date: 30 June 1879
• Citation: 81 N.C. 340,31 Am.Rep. 503
• Parties: JESSE E. WHITAKER v. JAMES N. SMITH.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

31 Am.Rep. 503

81 N.C. 340

JESSE E. WHITAKER

v.JAMES N. SMITH.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1879.

CIVIL ACTION tried at Spring Term, 1879, of HALIFAX Superior Court, before Eure, J.

The opinion contains the facts. His Honor gave judgment for the sum claimed by plaintiff as due for services rendered as a farm overseer, but held that he had no lien on the crops, &c., of defendant to secure payment of the judgment. From which ruling the plaintiff appealed.

Mr. J. H. Flemming, for plaintiff .

Mr. Thos. N. Hill, for defendant :

Commented upon the ruling in Wray v. Harris, 77 N. C., 77, and maintained that under the constitution and acts of assembly, overseers were not the objects of the benefits conferred. An overseer is simply an agent. Smith v. Cameron, 11 Ire., 572.

ASHE, J.

This was an action to recover of the defendant services rendered by the plaintiff as overseer during the year 1877, and to enforce what is claimed to be a laborer's lien upon the crops, stock, farming utensils, and plantation of the defendant. A document was filed with the clerk of the superior court of Halifax county, purporting to be a notice of lien which is as follows:

“Know all men by these presents that I, Jesse E. Whitaker, of the county of Halifax and state of North Carolina, commenced work by verbal contract with James N. Smith, on the first day of January, 1877, as overseer and farm superintendent at the rate of five hundred dollars per year, and worked as per contract until the first day of January, 1878; that said Smith is indebted to me for said services in the sum of five hundred dollars, no part or portion thereof has been paid. I file this as my lien against the crops raised, and the stock, farming utensils used on the river farm of the said Smith, and against the lands of said Smith, that is to say, his river plantation whereon I performed said services the said year 1877. Witness my hand and seal, this 5th of January, 1878.

+---------------------------------+
                ¦(Signed)¦J. E. WHITAKER, [seal.]”¦
                +---------------------------------+
                

The facts of the case were submitted to the court as upon a case agreed, and among other things it was submitted that “if the court shall be of opinion either that the plaintiff has no lien on said land or crops, or having had one, lost it by failing to comply with the statute, it will so declare.” The court held that the plaintiff had no lien upon the crops and other property of the defendant, from which judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.

And the only question presented by the appeal is whether an overseer is entitled to a laborer's lien for his wages upon the crops, stock, &c., of his employer, and also upon the plantation over which he had superintendence.

In article fourteen section four of the constitution, it is provided that the general assembly shall provide by proper legislation for giving to mechanics and laborers an adequate lien on the subject matter of their labor; and in pursuance of the injunction of the constitution, the legislature passed the act of 1868-'69, ch. 117, entitled “an act to create a mechanics' and laborers' lien” and as amendatory of the same the act of 1870, ch. 206, entitled “an act for the protection of mechanics and...